5 ms·

This is the problem with the US justice system - it's about vengeance rather than any utilitarian benefit.

by nopassrecover 17y ago

calcnerd256 17y ago
The threat of vengeance can provide some utilitarian benefit.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  It may. But it may also engender more problems than it solves. Don't forget that the burden of maintaining the prison system is on the shoulders of the rest of society. America has an absolutely amazing number of people in prison at any given time, also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world.
  - endtime 17y ago
    >also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world. That implies that the imprisoning is arbitrary, which it isn't. If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. You think so ? Three strikes law ? Minor drugs infractions ? stuff like this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_police_entrapment_sting/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_poli... Think again: http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548 http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548
      - jibiki 17y ago
        The second link is very interesting. What crimes against "public order" are people committing? Wikipedia suggests that prostitution, statutory rape, and DUI are all in the category. (I would guess that DUI comprises the bulk of their public order crime number then, but maybe they count that under drug crime instead?)
    - ahoyhere 17y ago
      > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. In most first-world countries, you won't be imprisoned for having minor amounts of marijuana; you won't get strip searched at middle school if they suspect you have Midol; you won't be labeled a sex offender for life for having oral sex with a fellow teenager who happens to be 3 months (1 year on paper) younger than you; you certainly won't get arrested and have your children taken away for taking a picture of yourself breastfeeding your baby. Let's not even talk about the trumped up criminality of not-for-profit copyright infringement. On the other hand, these things all happen in the US on a seemingly regular basis.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        To be fair, I think the media coverage distorts the picture even further than reality is, but reality is more than bad enough.
        ahoyhere 17y ago
        In what way, and which case? People have gone to jail "forever" for the final crime of stealing a box of candy. You can pound that til it's flat, but that is the truth. The other offenses were not violent. And the woman who had her kids taken away because of the breastfeeding pic? I don't think that was exaggerated at all. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest&page=1 http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest&...
        jacquesm 17y ago
        Absolutely true, no contest there. What I mean is this: there are literally millions of cases, there would have to be in order to have 2 million people in prison. Many more cases will not have made it through the prosecution process, I'm assuming there are still some level-headed judges and juries out there. But 'woman exonerated for making breast feeding pic' does not make a very good headline, so you'll never hear about it. Which is ok, because the system already took care of that one. So, the media is on the right side in this one, but it still distorts the image.
jerf 17y ago
Again, though, what's your alternative? "Oh, gosh, do you promise to stop?" "Yes, your honor." "OK, you're released. Have a nice day!"? You're simply alluding to a vague argument that, if you spell it out, will probably sound very silly. I understand and acknowledge that there are different reasons a penal system could be based on (deterrance vs. vengeance vs. simple separation of criminal from law-abider). But under none of those reasons is this a terribly "throw-the-book" punishment. Are you simply against the idea of a prison system in general? Are you for legalizing harassment of witnesses? What? Spell it out.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  That statement was more about the parent's attitude than the article in question - yes we need a deterrant for harassing witnesses because without it we cannot have a legal system. I don't think prison is the answer except when we decide that the person in question believes themselves above the law/is too great a risk. We do need some sort of means of deterrant and stripping one's liberty should be strong enough - to introduce someone into a enclosed society (prison) where rape, violence and drug abuse may as well be decriminalised seems too much for most crimes. People commit crimes because either a) they don't think they'll be caught, b) they don't care if they get caught or c) they're insane. People that respect the law rarely do so because of the threat of punishment.

This is the problem with the US justice system - it's about vengeance rather than any utilitarian benefit.

calcnerd256 17y ago

The threat of vengeance can provide some utilitarian benefit.

jacquesm 17y ago
It may. But it may also engender more problems than it solves. Don't forget that the burden of maintaining the prison system is on the shoulders of the rest of society. America has an absolutely amazing number of people in prison at any given time, also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world.
- endtime 17y ago
  >also the chances of becoming a prisoner in your lifetime border on the medieval compared to the rest of the developed world. That implies that the imprisoning is arbitrary, which it isn't. If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. You think so ? Three strikes law ? Minor drugs infractions ? stuff like this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_police_entrapment_sting/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/topless_woman_poli... Think again: http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548 http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1001548
    - jibiki 17y ago
      The second link is very interesting. What crimes against "public order" are people committing? Wikipedia suggests that prostitution, statutory rape, and DUI are all in the category. (I would guess that DUI comprises the bulk of their public order crime number then, but maybe they count that under drug crime instead?)
  - ahoyhere 17y ago
    > If you don't commit major crimes then your chance of being imprisoned is near zero. In most first-world countries, you won't be imprisoned for having minor amounts of marijuana; you won't get strip searched at middle school if they suspect you have Midol; you won't be labeled a sex offender for life for having oral sex with a fellow teenager who happens to be 3 months (1 year on paper) younger than you; you certainly won't get arrested and have your children taken away for taking a picture of yourself breastfeeding your baby. Let's not even talk about the trumped up criminality of not-for-profit copyright infringement. On the other hand, these things all happen in the US on a seemingly regular basis.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      To be fair, I think the media coverage distorts the picture even further than reality is, but reality is more than bad enough.
      - ahoyhere 17y ago
        In what way, and which case? People have gone to jail "forever" for the final crime of stealing a box of candy. You can pound that til it's flat, but that is the truth. The other offenses were not violent. And the woman who had her kids taken away because of the breastfeeding pic? I don't think that was exaggerated at all. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest&page=1 http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest&...
        jacquesm 17y ago
        Absolutely true, no contest there. What I mean is this: there are literally millions of cases, there would have to be in order to have 2 million people in prison. Many more cases will not have made it through the prosecution process, I'm assuming there are still some level-headed judges and juries out there. But 'woman exonerated for making breast feeding pic' does not make a very good headline, so you'll never hear about it. Which is ok, because the system already took care of that one. So, the media is on the right side in this one, but it still distorts the image.

jerf 17y ago

Again, though, what's your alternative? "Oh, gosh, do you promise to stop?" "Yes, your honor." "OK, you're released. Have a nice day!"? You're simply alluding to a vague argument that, if you spell it out, will probably sound very silly. I understand and acknowledge that there are different reasons a penal system could be based on (deterrance vs. vengeance vs. simple separation of criminal from law-abider). But under none of those reasons is this a terribly "throw-the-book" punishment. Are you simply against the idea of a prison system in general? Are you for legalizing harassment of witnesses? What? Spell it out.

nopassrecover 17y ago
That statement was more about the parent's attitude than the article in question - yes we need a deterrant for harassing witnesses because without it we cannot have a legal system. I don't think prison is the answer except when we decide that the person in question believes themselves above the law/is too great a risk. We do need some sort of means of deterrant and stripping one's liberty should be strong enough - to introduce someone into a enclosed society (prison) where rape, violence and drug abuse may as well be decriminalised seems too much for most crimes. People commit crimes because either a) they don't think they'll be caught, b) they don't care if they get caught or c) they're insane. People that respect the law rarely do so because of the threat of punishment.