3 ms·

Incapacitation is only one of the reasons we imprison people, albeit the most important reason and the most easily defensible. Murderers who are unlikely to re

Incapacitation is only one of the reasons we imprison people, albeit the most important reason and the most easily defensible. Murderers who are unlikely to reoffend are still put into prison because our prisons are also for punishing people who do things we think are worthy of punishment. There's no contradiction here, prisons simultaneously serve several purposes.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Indeed, and many of these factors are taken into consideration for the construction of sentences, although often times with different weighting that some people would like.
vidarh 2y ago
Point remains that the concern of reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration - reoffending rates shows that the sentencing very clearly does very little to ensure people are locked up until rehabilitated.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > "concern of reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration" Complete bullshit. Concern for somebody reoffending is a major factor in sentencing and in the public's support for the continued existence of the prison system. Examples of sentencing that follow from other principles do not contradict this.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    The US prison system is demonstrably awful at reducing reoffending.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  you are mixing two separate topics. Concern of reoffending =/= optimizing rehabilitation. reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration - False, It is usually the #1 consideration, and why courts look at criminal history, risk factors, ect. This doesnt have to be based on rehabilitation, but can be justified simply with a incapacitation rationale. E.G. You think someone is likely to reoffend so you lock them up longer. not because you think it will offer more rehabilitation, but because it incapacitates them for longer. 3 strikes laws are a classic example of this. You dont give someone a 25 sentence because thats how long it takes to rehabilitate them. you do it because you think they are a serial offender you want to keep off the streets and they are unlikely to be rehabilitated
  - vidarh 2y ago
    > False, It is usually the #1 consideration No, it is not, or the prison system would be structured entirely differently. Courts do not have the power to affect that. > E.G. You think someone is likely to reoffend so you lock them up longer. not because you think it will offer more rehabilitation, but because it incapacitates them for longer. The reality is that this is unproductive when it comes to reducing crime. > 3 strikes laws are a classic example of this. You dont give someone a 25 sentence because thats how long it takes to rehabilitate them. you do it because you think they are a serial offender you want to keep off the streets and they are unlikely to be rehabilitated The reality is that this too is ineffective at reducing crime.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Indeed, and many of these factors are taken into consideration for the construction of sentences, although often times with different weighting that some people would like.

vidarh 2y ago

Point remains that the concern of reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration - reoffending rates shows that the sentencing very clearly does very little to ensure people are locked up until rehabilitated.

lupusreal 2y ago
> "concern of reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration" Complete bullshit. Concern for somebody reoffending is a major factor in sentencing and in the public's support for the continued existence of the prison system. Examples of sentencing that follow from other principles do not contradict this.
- vidarh 2y ago
  The US prison system is demonstrably awful at reducing reoffending.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
you are mixing two separate topics. Concern of reoffending =/= optimizing rehabilitation. reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration - False, It is usually the #1 consideration, and why courts look at criminal history, risk factors, ect. This doesnt have to be based on rehabilitation, but can be justified simply with a incapacitation rationale. E.G. You think someone is likely to reoffend so you lock them up longer. not because you think it will offer more rehabilitation, but because it incapacitates them for longer. 3 strikes laws are a classic example of this. You dont give someone a 25 sentence because thats how long it takes to rehabilitate them. you do it because you think they are a serial offender you want to keep off the streets and they are unlikely to be rehabilitated
- vidarh 2y ago
  > False, It is usually the #1 consideration No, it is not, or the prison system would be structured entirely differently. Courts do not have the power to affect that. > E.G. You think someone is likely to reoffend so you lock them up longer. not because you think it will offer more rehabilitation, but because it incapacitates them for longer. The reality is that this is unproductive when it comes to reducing crime. > 3 strikes laws are a classic example of this. You dont give someone a 25 sentence because thats how long it takes to rehabilitate them. you do it because you think they are a serial offender you want to keep off the streets and they are unlikely to be rehabilitated The reality is that this too is ineffective at reducing crime.