4 ms·

> prisons are not real punishment I think Aaron Swartz would disagree. > punishing them with the clear intention of feeling good in some way This plays some

by csense 14y ago

> prisons are not real punishment I think Aaron Swartz would disagree. > punishing them with the clear intention of feeling good in some way This plays some role, but I'd say the biggest reason people give in favor of having prisons is rational: Deterrence. If crimes aren't punished, what stops people from stealing when they want something they can't afford? What stops the strong from beating up the weak for fun, for profit, or as a way to resolve disputes in their favor? What stops the weak from shooting the strong because they finally get tired of being beaten up? What reason is there to adhere to contracts and agreements necessary for effective commerce if it would be more beneficial to one party to break them? If you agree that punishment is necessary, but prison is somehow deficient as a punishment, what's the alternative? The punishment has to be sufficiently undesirable to cause most people to avoid crime in order to avoid the punishment. In addition, if it's going to be implemented in the US, it can't be cruel and unusual punishment since that is strictly Constitutionally prohibited, and if it's going to be implemented in a relatively free and democratic society, it has to show respect for generally accepted human rights principles. This excludes solutions like lashing, waterboarding, more extreme torture, massive expansions of the death penalty (I believe England as late as the 1500's would hang homeless children for stealing clothes to keep warm in the winter), or collective punishment (punishing someone else instead of or in addition to a criminal, e.g. many authoritarian regimes are willing to punish opponents by jailing, torturing, and/or killing their innocent friends, relatives, and children). I do think that US criminal justice could be better. Currently many crimes are punished too harshly, sometimes sentences are inconsistent, current implementation of plea bargaining sometimes leads to terrible injustices, public defenders are woefully underfunded, the education system doesn't do a good job of covering these issues, and life is far too difficult for people after a felony conviction (discrimination against workers with felony records is legal and widespread; this sort of discrimination shouldn't be illegal, but culturally we need to be more willing to let people have second chances).

brianchu 14y ago
The Aaron Swartz analogy doesn't work. The point that the parent was trying to make was that for your average violent and even non-violent criminal (typically low-income upbringing, living in run-down conditions, living on the "streets" but not in a homeless sense), prisons are not real punishment. In fact, conditions in prison can for some be an improvement. Aaron grew up in an upper-middle class environment. Prison would have been a total change for him. The problem with deterrence is that criminals by their very nature do not think about the consequences of their actions. This is a generalization, but criminals tend to have poor impulse control and don't think about the future. This is why many studies have shown that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent - a murderer is not being rational in their decision to murder someone. They either do it in the heat of the moment (can't control their temper), or they do because of overwhelming emotion/hate/spite/sociopathy (premeditated murder).
- csense 14y ago
  Here's the flaw in your argument against the necessity of deterrence: If a policy effectively prevents a targeted category of people from becoming criminals, then most criminals won't be from that targeted category. Say p ~ 10% of people either don't think about the consequences of their actions or don't care whether they go to jail. Say q ~ 90% do care about the consequences of their actions and do care whether they go to jail. Under a system where deterrence is a strong element, most criminals will be from p. But remove the deterrent, and you'll start seeing more criminals from q.
  - brianchu 14y ago
    Let me clarify. I did not say that deterrence is utterly without use. When I said that there is a problem with deterrence, I meant that the current state of deterrence in our justice system is broken. There is a mistaken belief that more punishment necessarily entails greater deterrence, which is many times not the case. There is really a threshold when it comes to deterrence. There is very little to no deterrent effect of the death penalty vs. life without parole, as others have posted here. In fact, I personally find it hard to believe that a life sentence versus, say, 50 years in prison, has any additional deterrent effect for something like murder. The rational 90% would still be adequately deterred.

by csense 14y ago

brianchu 14y ago

The Aaron Swartz analogy doesn't work. The point that the parent was trying to make was that for your average violent and even non-violent criminal (typically low-income upbringing, living in run-down conditions, living on the "streets" but not in a homeless sense), prisons are not real punishment. In fact, conditions in prison can for some be an improvement. Aaron grew up in an upper-middle class environment. Prison would have been a total change for him. The problem with deterrence is that criminals by their very nature do not think about the consequences of their actions. This is a generalization, but criminals tend to have poor impulse control and don't think about the future. This is why many studies have shown that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent - a murderer is not being rational in their decision to murder someone. They either do it in the heat of the moment (can't control their temper), or they do because of overwhelming emotion/hate/spite/sociopathy (premeditated murder).

csense 14y ago
Here's the flaw in your argument against the necessity of deterrence: If a policy effectively prevents a targeted category of people from becoming criminals, then most criminals won't be from that targeted category. Say p ~ 10% of people either don't think about the consequences of their actions or don't care whether they go to jail. Say q ~ 90% do care about the consequences of their actions and do care whether they go to jail. Under a system where deterrence is a strong element, most criminals will be from p. But remove the deterrent, and you'll start seeing more criminals from q.
- brianchu 14y ago
  Let me clarify. I did not say that deterrence is utterly without use. When I said that there is a problem with deterrence, I meant that the current state of deterrence in our justice system is broken. There is a mistaken belief that more punishment necessarily entails greater deterrence, which is many times not the case. There is really a threshold when it comes to deterrence. There is very little to no deterrent effect of the death penalty vs. life without parole, as others have posted here. In fact, I personally find it hard to believe that a life sentence versus, say, 50 years in prison, has any additional deterrent effect for something like murder. The rational 90% would still be adequately deterred.