4 ms·

Your claim that prisons reduce the likelihood of the population at large is not obvious on its face Are you saying that, irrespective of the chance of being ca

Your claim that prisons reduce the likelihood of the population at large is not obvious on its face Are you saying that, irrespective of the chance of being caught and convicted, and of the severity of the likely punishment, the likelihood of someone committing a crime is constant? Here is a study supporting the assertion that prisons increase (or do not reduce) the likelihood of someone reoffending in the future That has nothing to do with the point I made, which was about people becoming criminals. I said nothing about the behaviour of existing criminals.

energywut 1y ago
> Are you saying that, irrespective of the chance of being caught and convicted, and of the severity of the likely punishment, the likelihood of someone committing a crime is constant? I'm saying that prison sentences are not a deterrent to crime, and, in fact, increase the amount of crime done. Research has consistently shown that the threat of being caught is considerably higher deterrent than prison time, and that harsh sentences don't influence behavior: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr... > That has nothing to do with the point I made, which was about people becoming criminals. We are discussing crime. Which has a total sum. You can reduce that sum by preventing people from being criminals or you can reduce that sum by reforming criminals. I believe you need both. So it is important to remember that prisons negatively contribute to reforming people, increasing total crime, while research shows they don't contribute to preventing people from being criminals. We need other systems, systems that prevent people from becoming criminals AND reduce the likelihood of re-offending if they do.
- rahimnathwani 1y ago
  I'm saying that prison sentences are not a deterrent to crime, and, in fact, increase the amount of crime done. Research has consistently shown that the threat of being caught is considerably higher deterrent than prison time, and that harsh sentences don't influence behavior: Would the threat of being caught be a deterrent if the sentence were 1 day?

energywut 1y ago

> Are you saying that, irrespective of the chance of being caught and convicted, and of the severity of the likely punishment, the likelihood of someone committing a crime is constant? I'm saying that prison sentences are not a deterrent to crime, and, in fact, increase the amount of crime done. Research has consistently shown that the threat of being caught is considerably higher deterrent than prison time, and that harsh sentences don't influence behavior: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr... > That has nothing to do with the point I made, which was about people becoming criminals. We are discussing crime. Which has a total sum. You can reduce that sum by preventing people from being criminals or you can reduce that sum by reforming criminals. I believe you need both. So it is important to remember that prisons negatively contribute to reforming people, increasing total crime, while research shows they don't contribute to preventing people from being criminals. We need other systems, systems that prevent people from becoming criminals AND reduce the likelihood of re-offending if they do.

rahimnathwani 1y ago
I'm saying that prison sentences are not a deterrent to crime, and, in fact, increase the amount of crime done. Research has consistently shown that the threat of being caught is considerably higher deterrent than prison time, and that harsh sentences don't influence behavior: Would the threat of being caught be a deterrent if the sentence were 1 day?