4 ms·

It's unfair to say it "makes" them that way. They were incarcerated because they already proved willing to commit a crime. It failed to change them back into an

It's unfair to say it "makes" them that way. They were incarcerated because they already proved willing to commit a crime. It failed to change them back into an average citizen, sure. Understandably a very difficult problem. It's quite possible that it makes them worse instead of better but we'd need different evidence to show that.

closewith 3y ago
The average citizen in every country is already willing to commit a crime. The difference between the average criminal and you is a couple of meals.
- morgante 3y ago
  This is completely untrue and does a tremendous disservice to the many impoverished people who do not become criminals. > The difference between the average criminal and you is a couple of meals. This is an insane point of view! Most criminals aren't stealing food.
- laurent_du 3y ago
  No amount of missed meals will make me commit a rape, a murder, or other heinous crimes.
  - closewith 3y ago
    If you honestly believe this, you've never been truly hungry. Most to all people will kill for food.
    - scbrg 3y ago
      While that's probably true, I don't really see its relevance. I'm fairly certain that exactly zero of the people spending prison time for murder in my country committed murder because they were hungry. I'm open to the possibility that the situation may be different in other countries, but I strongly doubt it's a leading cause pretty much anywhere.
      - closewith 3y ago
        Well, as Lord Beaverbrook might have said, we've already established that we're all potential criminals. All we're haggling about now is the threshold that would cause us to commit a crime. Without having lived the lives of others, you simply don't know if you would have committed the same (or worse) crimes in their situation. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't punish crimes, but to imagine that you're a better person than most criminals is just self-flattery.
    - supertofu 3y ago
      There is a very famous American Buddhist monk called "Ajahn Geoff" who teaches this exact thing. Most people WILL commit heinous acts under the pressure of starvation. (And that's why he and other Buddhist monastics urge the taking of the Buddhist moral precepts).
  - cellis 3y ago
    Maybe not for you, but what if your son/daughter was missing meals? Moreover, you can see other people eating just fine, and no one will hire you? Also consider that the people you "murder" likely "had it coming" and were rapists, terrorists, blasphemers, or otherwise cultural heretics...until and unless you've been in those exact situations, it's incredulous that you'd not do what many other humans would do/have done.
    - true_religion 3y ago
      People who say they wouldn’t murder people for food are saints. I would definitely do it. I like living more than I like other people living. However, I wouldn’t murder anyone in anyone in a modern civilized society. Why not just use social services? And if that doesn’t exist, then steal. Even if you’re caught they’ll be obligated to give you food. Society needs to devolve to far far below what is the US standard before murder becomes a reasonable solution to food problems.
      - sethammons 3y ago
        So you steal and the person tries to murder you. Do you defend yourself? Even a push can knock the person over, hitting their head. Congratulations, you are a murderer.
        true_religion 3y ago
        I think it was pretty clear we were all talking about intentional crimes, not crimes of passion or accident or even negligence. So unless I know the core of your argument, I’m not sure how to respond to this digression.
  - vunderba 3y ago
    You don't know this. You can "imagine" how you'd react in a theoretical situation all you like, but It's like the first time you go skydiving - sure you know the safety record and you've got a parachute/reserve but until you get thrown out of a moving plane at 14,000 feet in the air, you have no idea whether you're going to react calmly or completely freak out. Likewise until you're actually in a life and death situation, you don't know what you're truly capable of.
    - all2 3y ago
      Not knowing the answer to these questions makes me wonder at who I am sometimes. How would I react to being thrown from a plane, a gun to my head, starving on the street. I thank God I haven't had to experience those things, but I still wonder at what kind of man I am.
globalnode 3y ago
you'll never get that "different evidence", how are you going to set up a control
- modeless 3y ago
  I agree that it's difficult. Sometimes there are natural experiments that already happened.
BirAdam 3y ago
Not everyone who is incarcerated committed a crime. Some are in custody for having marijuana which has since been decriminalized in some areas. Others are there because they plea bargained due to pressure. Almost no one who is in custody ever had a trial despite this being a “right” in the USA.
- modeless 3y ago
  We're talking about averages here. Certainly there are plenty of individuals wrongly incarcerated, etc.

closewith 3y ago

The average citizen in every country is already willing to commit a crime. The difference between the average criminal and you is a couple of meals.

morgante 3y ago
This is completely untrue and does a tremendous disservice to the many impoverished people who do not become criminals. > The difference between the average criminal and you is a couple of meals. This is an insane point of view! Most criminals aren't stealing food.
laurent_du 3y ago
No amount of missed meals will make me commit a rape, a murder, or other heinous crimes.
- closewith 3y ago
  If you honestly believe this, you've never been truly hungry. Most to all people will kill for food.
  - scbrg 3y ago
    While that's probably true, I don't really see its relevance. I'm fairly certain that exactly zero of the people spending prison time for murder in my country committed murder because they were hungry. I'm open to the possibility that the situation may be different in other countries, but I strongly doubt it's a leading cause pretty much anywhere.
    - closewith 3y ago
      Well, as Lord Beaverbrook might have said, we've already established that we're all potential criminals. All we're haggling about now is the threshold that would cause us to commit a crime. Without having lived the lives of others, you simply don't know if you would have committed the same (or worse) crimes in their situation. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't punish crimes, but to imagine that you're a better person than most criminals is just self-flattery.
  - supertofu 3y ago
    There is a very famous American Buddhist monk called "Ajahn Geoff" who teaches this exact thing. Most people WILL commit heinous acts under the pressure of starvation. (And that's why he and other Buddhist monastics urge the taking of the Buddhist moral precepts).
- cellis 3y ago
  Maybe not for you, but what if your son/daughter was missing meals? Moreover, you can see other people eating just fine, and no one will hire you? Also consider that the people you "murder" likely "had it coming" and were rapists, terrorists, blasphemers, or otherwise cultural heretics...until and unless you've been in those exact situations, it's incredulous that you'd not do what many other humans would do/have done.
  - true_religion 3y ago
    People who say they wouldn’t murder people for food are saints. I would definitely do it. I like living more than I like other people living. However, I wouldn’t murder anyone in anyone in a modern civilized society. Why not just use social services? And if that doesn’t exist, then steal. Even if you’re caught they’ll be obligated to give you food. Society needs to devolve to far far below what is the US standard before murder becomes a reasonable solution to food problems.
    - sethammons 3y ago
      So you steal and the person tries to murder you. Do you defend yourself? Even a push can knock the person over, hitting their head. Congratulations, you are a murderer.
      - true_religion 3y ago
        I think it was pretty clear we were all talking about intentional crimes, not crimes of passion or accident or even negligence. So unless I know the core of your argument, I’m not sure how to respond to this digression.
- vunderba 3y ago
  You don't know this. You can "imagine" how you'd react in a theoretical situation all you like, but It's like the first time you go skydiving - sure you know the safety record and you've got a parachute/reserve but until you get thrown out of a moving plane at 14,000 feet in the air, you have no idea whether you're going to react calmly or completely freak out. Likewise until you're actually in a life and death situation, you don't know what you're truly capable of.
  - all2 3y ago
    Not knowing the answer to these questions makes me wonder at who I am sometimes. How would I react to being thrown from a plane, a gun to my head, starving on the street. I thank God I haven't had to experience those things, but I still wonder at what kind of man I am.

globalnode 3y ago

you'll never get that "different evidence", how are you going to set up a control

modeless 3y ago
I agree that it's difficult. Sometimes there are natural experiments that already happened.

BirAdam 3y ago

Not everyone who is incarcerated committed a crime. Some are in custody for having marijuana which has since been decriminalized in some areas. Others are there because they plea bargained due to pressure. Almost no one who is in custody ever had a trial despite this being a “right” in the USA.

modeless 3y ago
We're talking about averages here. Certainly there are plenty of individuals wrongly incarcerated, etc.