Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Crime and Punishment
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(14)
Message 1 of 40 (639154)
10-28-2011 12:47 PM


After some off-topic discussion in the Occupy Wall Street thread, I'd like to talk briefly about correctional systems.
This is one of our prisons, now i cant find the pictures from the inside but its not a bad place to live and on the plus side everything is free, the rooms, the tvs, the food, ....
So i kinda am in favor of "enslaving" prisoners for punishment cause this clearly is not a punishment.
Im not saying we should use them as miners or gladiators, .... Just give them something to do like cleaning up parks, building roads, .... make them actually pay their debt to society, not accumulate new ones.
When a crime is committed, there are three basic priorities:
1) Protect citizens and society
2) Punish the offender
3) Ensure that the crime will not be repeated
Prison is one of the tools used by correctional systems around the world as a response to crime. The advantages of incarceration include protecting citizens and society by separating the criminal from the rest of the population, and in providing a negative consequence for crime.
Unfortunately, the basic human reaction to crime tends to focus almost exclusively on punishment, under the assumption that treating "criminals" with sufficient harshness will provide a deterrent to them and other potential criminals against breaking the law in the future (hypothetically providing the third goal, preventing recidivism).
The problem is that it doesn't work that way.
American prisons are, no joke, torture chambers. They aren't just unpleasant hotels. You lose all rights to privacy, you're confined like an animal, guards will treat you (and beat you) like an animal, in some cases you're led to slaughter like an animal, and your only daily association is with other criminals.
In other words, once you're sent to prison (even for a minor crime), your only influences are negative. The positive influences in your life, like family and friends, are separated from you. You're typically forced to join a gang to avoid brutal beatings and sexual abuse (which will often happen anyway), and the guards will not care, as their only goal is to keep you locked up, not to protect your rights or safety.
What do you think would happen to you if you were convicted of a minor crime? Imagine you're sentenced to prison for 5 years and get out on parole in 2. You would spend two entire years of your life, years you cannot get back, away from all of your friends and family. You would lose your job, and (unless someone else like a spouse steps in to pay) your housing. You'll spend two years locked in a series of cages, able to make virtually no choices of your own, typically fearing beatings or rape every day. The only "skills" you learn include advice from other criminals - largely how to commit bigger crimes and get away with it more often.
Then you get out...but now you're a convicted felon. What job will hire you? Whatever your prospects for employment before your conviction and incarceration, now you're condemned to a lifetime of menial jobs for barely any money. College won't help even if you can afford it - employers don't typically hire convicted felons regardless of their education. You have no money, you likely have no home of your own and are living with family or friends, you've been traumatized for two years straight, and your future looks no brighter because you can't find a decent job.
What do you think happens? Would you turn to crime again rather than be a janitor for the rest of your life? Do you think you might have some built up anger over your treatment?
That's the friendly side of American prisons, for a short sentence. Imagine 10-20 years of prison gangs and the threat of beatings and rape, with little contact with your family, restricted access to basically everything, and guards who'll beat you senseless at the slightest hint of defiance.
You cannot possibly imagine even a single year of solitary confinement. It will quite literally drive you insane.
quote:
The isolation units at California's Pelican Bay prison hold more than 1,200 inmates. They live in small, windowless cells, often for years, with virtually no human contact.
So - the US is extremely "tough on crime." We punish criminals of all sorts worse than anyone else int he First World, provide longer sentences, and execute more people. We focus hard on the "punishment" aspect of correction.
What's the result? To me, what matters in a system (other than ethics) are its results.
From the Department of Justice.
Our recidivism rate is roughly 70%. If we send a person to prison, our "correctional" system is so super effective at deterrance and rehabilitation that there is a 70% chance that you will commit another crime and be sent back to prison.
And over a 10-year period, it got worse.
And check this out:
From Wiki.
quote:
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,292,133 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2009 about 1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.
quote:
The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world (743 per 100,000 population), Russia has the second highest rate (577 per 100,000), followed by Rwanda (561 per 100,000).[4] As of year-end 2009 the USA rate was 743 adults incarcerated in prisons and jails per 100,000 population.[2][4] At year-end 2007 the United States had less than 5% of the world's population[26] and 23.4% of the world's prison and jail population (adult inmates).[5]
According to the New York Times:
quote:
Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists. If lists were compiled based on annual admissions to prison per capita, several European countries would outpace the United States. But American prison stays are much longer, so the total incarceration rate is higher. ... "Rises and falls in Canada's crime rate have closely paralleled America's for 40 years," Mr. Tonry wrote last year. "But its imprisonment rate has remained stable."
We have a higher proportion of citizens in prison, we lock them away for longer under worse conditions...
...and there's still a 70% chance that any inmate we release will wind up getting arrested all over again.
Slovenia, by comparison, has only 1099 prisoners. Total.
Only 59 citizens per 100,000 are in prison. They're 123rd in the world.
The US is #1. We have 715 per 100,000.
I'm not exactly cheering.
Just as an example, since I couldn;t find English stats on Slovenia, heere's some info about recidivism in Cuba:
quote:
In Cuba, the emphasis is more on rehabilitation and a return to the community than on punishment or societal isolation. Prisoners are allowed to wear street clothes, earn a comparable income (to that of a free person who holds the same occupation), and are incarcerated in their home province no matter what their security level is. Additionally, prisoners become eligible for a conditional release program halfway through their sentence (for sentences of under five years), through which they work on farms or in factories with co-workers who are not informed of their prisoner status. Through this program, offenders are also able to visit their families at home (unsupervised) twice a month for three days at a time. Of those prisoners who participate in alternative programs such as the conditional release program, the recidivism rate is about 15%.
Even Cuba, a communist dictatorship, treats inmates better than Americans do.
Secondly for good behavior you can get the weekend off and go home lol crazy but true.
I don't think it's crazy at all, Frako. I think it actually works. I think that treating criminals like they're human beings who made a mistake results in lower crime rates and less risk to society than treating them like animals, locking them up and forgetting about them.
I think the focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation has poisoned the entire US "Justice" system. We set our criminals up for failure. The result is that we pay dearly, in taxes for incarceration, in the social cost of permanently ruining felons' chances at becoming productive citizens again, and morally, because we have essentially instituted legalized, systematic torture.
I disagree with Frako. I think Slovenia, like many European countries with similar correctional practices, have it right. They get better results. And they don't sacrifice any pretense of ethics.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by frako, posted 10-28-2011 2:13 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 10-28-2011 6:40 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 3 of 40 (639172)
10-28-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by frako
10-28-2011 2:13 PM


Well if you make the prisoners work and i mean hard work like digging ditches they would not have the energy to rape each other after they are done.
Says you. I'm somewhat skeptical of such a claim.
now all they do is lay around the prison think how to smuggle in drugs, how to keep the other group from smuggling in drugs so they get a bigger share of the profits, and how enhance their sexual life from the daylie rutine from ms, left and ms right. And when they are bored they think about how to not get caught again and share their ideas.
And how would this be different in a "hard labor" scenario? Would you ban all convict communication while at work? Otherwise, what do you suppose will be on their minds while they do hard, menial labor? What do you think they'll be talking about while they pick cotton fields or dig ditches?
Of course there also hasto be a carrot on the other side of the stick.
In the US, there is only a stick.
Im all for getting the prisoners educated, we dont have many problems of ex prisoners not finding work cause no one asks i sure didnt i had a worker that was drunk and crashed into a house killing 2 of his passengers he got a few years in jail for it found out about it 6 months after i hired him dint fire him after i found out lol.
There are jobs that you cant have with a criminal record but hay thats life.
There is obviously a rather distinct difference between Slovenian employment and American. Felons can rarely find jobs here. Every employment application asks "have you been convicted of a felony?" Most jobs perform criminal background checks. Felons frequently can't even get a job at McDonalds flipping burgers.
But im also for that prison is a living hell within the law, no entertainment(not tv, no basketball, no drugs, no cigarettes, no raping, no chatting the day away) just work food, sleep and an education if you are willing to educate yourself.
I bolded a bit. Why? What urges you to support making the life of another human being as miserable as is legally possible (and I'll note that, in the US, that's pretty miserable - the difference between legal misery and illegal misery is differenciated only in the specific manner it is caused)?
Do you know what happens to the human mind when you disallow any recreational time?
I note that you didn't even once respond to the actual statistical facts regarding crime and punishment in the US vs other nations. You didn;t even once address the differences in how nations persue the goals of safety, punishment, and rehabilitation.
You've said what you support. But why do you support it? In what way do you think making prisoners more miserable will make the world a better place? What goal is better served?
Are you just being an Internet Tough Guy and suggesting that convicts are "bad" and that they "deserve worse?" What scale are you using to determine who deserves what?
None of those questions are rhetorical. I'd actually like to see answers. Saying "they should have to work" doesn't mean much unless you explain your reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by frako, posted 10-28-2011 2:13 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 10-28-2011 4:27 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 6 of 40 (639204)
10-28-2011 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by GDR
10-28-2011 6:40 PM


I'd just like to add one thing to your really well written post Rahvin. I have heard of cases, I believe this not to be uncommon, of people who reoffend simply because incarceration is the only way they can get by in life. After spending time in prison they have completely lost their ability to cope in the outside world.
In the US this is exacerbated by the fact that society itself resists re-integrating former prisoners. How can you reintegrate if you can't find a job, if all of your doors are closed?
You talk about family visits being important. I couldn't agree more, but unfortunately lack of family contact is one of the reasons that many wound up there in the first place. I just can't imagine spending 5 years in a prison environment and then all of a sudden have to go back into a world with no loved ones to help me establish a new life. I might very well feel more at home and safer in prison.
One of the things as Christians that we are called to in Matthew 25 is to visit those in prisons. It appears to me that there is good reason for that. It is important to have on-going contact with the life that exists outside of prison. As a Christian I'm a miserable failure in this regard.
It's not specifically family, really. You need a support group. For many, a family serves this purpose. For others, it's friends. For some, it's an actual support group like AA.
But these are the people you feel closest to, the people you turn to in a time of need. Being deprived of those people, being surrounded instead with people who actively want to hurt you constantly and with no possible escape...
Getting a visit from some Christian likely wouldn't have much of an effect, GDR, so I wouldn't feel too terribly bad. They need their outside support group, their friends and families, not a random stranger, regardless of good intentions.
I think the best thing we can do is to petition for better prisoner treatment, and try to break the endless cycle of "being tough on crime." Being tougher does nothing but make the criminals harder and more desperate. Showing a person inhumanity will serve only to make that person view others as inhuman, as potential threats, as competition, and as prey.
I can add a personal anecdote that some might find interesting.
One of my loved ones was arrested not terribly long ago. She was taken to the County jail for processing. The charge was felony spousal abuse - she had gotten in a struggle with her fiance over an attempted suicide (she has an anxiety disorder and was changing medications under the supervision of a doctor; one of the medications made her suicidally depressed), and wound up hitting him on the head to escape his grasp. Her aunt had been on the phone when the struggle began, and called 911.
She was treated like scum from the moment she was brought to the jail. They did a physical examination as if she was an animal. When she politely asked a guard to repeat herself, she was told "you better watch your mouth or something bad is gonna happen to you." She was kept in a room with other newly arrested women of all types, with no place to sit, no food, no toilet paper, one toilet with no privacy at all, and feces smeared on the walls for the entire duration. She has a terminal illness, and they would not give her her medication or tell her when it would be dispensed. She was in a constant state of panic (due mostly to her panic disorder) for the entire duration, with no ability to get help except to call us to ask to bail her out.
Because the charge was a felony, bail was set at $50,000. The "victim," her fiance, didn't even want to press charges. He didn't call 911. But we had to collectively come up with $5000 to pay a bondsman to get her out. Otherwise she would have needed to stay until trial.
This was before any charges were officially filed by the DA. This is what they do to people before they're even judged guilty.
It took over a month for her to even be able to see her assigned Public "Defender." The PD was not on her side - she used scare tactics to try to frighten her into accepting any deal the DA would offer.
Eventually, we were able again to come up with some more money to pay for a real lawyer, and the case was pled down to a misdemeanor.
Because the misdemeanor was for a "violent" crime, she may still have trouble returning to school or finding employment whenever a background check is performed.
This wasn't in some back-country small town. This was in a state capitol. There was no justice. She was not treated as "innocent until proven guilty." She was treated like a subhuman animal, worthy of contempt and scorn.
And it wasn't even prison. It was a holding cell at the County jail.
Is this how we should treat even the guilty? I wouldn't support keeping even a convicted rapist in conditions like those. It was torture, plain and simple.
I can support the idea of a prison, a facility used to keep dangerous criminals separated from the rest of society. I don;t at all support the way the US system uses prisons. I don't at all support forcing prisoners to work hard labor on top of being separated from their lives, their friends, their families.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 10-28-2011 6:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 10-28-2011 7:55 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 10-28-2011 8:18 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 8 of 40 (639207)
10-28-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by frako
10-28-2011 4:27 PM


Trust me when you work hard the only thing on your mind after its over is to go to sleep, if it isnt then you havent worked hard enough.
I'll trust you when you provide evidence.
Why do you think forced labor is a justifiable punishment? Why do you think it works as a deterrent? Why do you think it prevents recidivism?
Do you have any reason other than your own personal "gut feeling?" Do you know of a single study, any sttistical evidence whatsoever that could back up these sorts of claims?
I've provided ample data that additional harshness doesn't serve any useful purpose. Why would forced labor be particularly different? What gives any society the ethical right to treat people like slaves for any reason at all?
Theyl be thinking im not even gonna get a parking ticket after im out this is hell i rather flip burgers in a steaming hot room for minimum wage.
Again, that;s your "gut" talking.
You don;t think some would be thinking about how to not get caught next time? Maybe kill the witnesses?
Do you know what happens when punishments get sufficiently harsh, Frako? It doesn't stop crime, because harsh punishments do absolutely nothing to affect the causes of crime in the first place.
Once upon a time, theft was punishable by execution, the same as murder.
Do you know what happened?
Thieves started killing their victims instead of just stealing. No witnesses, you see, and the punishment was the same either way...so why leave the liability around?
"Deterrence" is a myth. It works for you and me, those who aren't suffering from the root causes of crime in the first place, because we have something to lose.
When the US re-instituted the death penalty, murder rates didn't drop.
Why do you think that adding additional misery will actually have any effect whatsoever on actual crime and recidivism? Why do you disregard every statistic on the subject?
well as you can see the stick only method does not work.
The stick doesn't work at all.
Then that is your problem if an ex fellon cant get a job survival will kick in and he will find some way to get food clothing, and a roof over his head.
The menial jobs he can find will do that. He just has no way to escape that bare existence. Nothing to look forward to, no hope. Which, in many cases, may not be too terribly different from before incarceration...
...which means the solution is to address the root causes of crime in the first place, and help criminals such that they can see a promising future without resorting to crime.
Prison doesn't do that. Hard labor doesn't do that. No amount of punishment can ever do that.
Because he broke the rules we live by and i dont want him to brake anymore especially around me, (i dont want to get robbed), and if the punishment is severe enough he may tink twice before doing it again.
He won't. Statistics show that even threatening death does not deter crime. Deterrence is a myth.
Dunno maybe we should ask an Amish guy how he feels about not watching tv and playing basketball.
The Amish do other things for recreation, but it's still recreation. Don't be a wise-ass, Frako. Why take away television, which may be their sole source of information about the outside world? What harm does it do to let them play basketball?
The goal being served is a deterant but the deterant only works if there is a carrot at the other side.
What's the carrot? We know from statistical data that "deterrence" is a myth. The harshness of the penalty does not deter crime. So what's the magical "carrot" you propose, and why couldn't we just use the carrot without the stick?
And basically the goal being served is giving the person a "spanking" (any disciplinary action) that he never got from his mom or dad.
Spankings don;t work either. Punishment doesn't address the reason for crime. If the reason still exists, crime will still happen.
What should be done is show them the consiquence if you brake the law you get punished then when that is shown enable them to live normal lives. The stick has to be mighty heavy and the carrot has to be in eyesight.
But the stick doesn't have to be heavy. That's the issue here. Harsher punishment does nothing to reduce crime rates or recidivism. We've tried. Doesn't work. Deterrence is a myth. The humane European prisons, which do things like allowing prisoners to go home for the weekend, like letting prisoners have privacy in the bathroom, like letting prisoners live in humane spaces that don;t resemble dog kennels, they have far lower crime rates.
What evidence do you have, other than your "gut feeling," that harsher punishment will result in deterrence?
Have you ever heard of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Frako?
Because your opinions are disturbingly reminiscent of the experiment's "guards."
You aren't alone, of course. Most Americans are right there with you, much to my disgust and dismay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by frako, posted 10-28-2011 4:27 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 10-28-2011 9:18 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 10-29-2011 12:19 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 22 by Jon, posted 10-29-2011 7:29 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 35 of 40 (639431)
10-31-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tangle
10-30-2011 6:25 PM


I recognise the figure of 70% recidivism. It's the same here in the UK. For all I know it's the same everywhere.
The one thing we DO know is that prison doesn't work. (If we think that it's some kind of solution to re-offending that is.) The one and pretty much only thing we can say on the positive side for prison is that it prevents further crime in the community - but it doesn't prevent crime in the prisons themselves.
The sad fact is that the prison population isn't made up of murderers and rapists, it's mostly full of the illiterate, mentally ill and drug addicted. It isn't a deterrent because those that end up there don't have the mental capacity to imagine being caught or don't care if they are.
The truth is, we just don't know how else to deal with the problem.
As an aside and as an outsider, looking at how the US deals with its criminals seems mediaeval which sadly we seem to be following..
Indeed, prison is not effective at reducing recidivism.
But not every nation has a ~70% recidivism rate. Japan, as an example, only sees around 46%.
quote:
Approximately 46 percent were repeat offenders. Japanese recidivism was attributed mainly to the discretionary powers of police, prosecutors, and courts and to the tendency to seek alternative sentences for first offenders.
The likely cause being, as stated, alternative sentencing, meaning "not prison," for first-time offenders.
Which, of course, means that not sending people to prison is better at reducing recidivism than prison.
Therapy, community service, interaction with "mentors," employment assistance and vocational education, rehab, these and other types of programs work to transform a drain on society (whether in prison or out in society but unemployable) into a functional contributor.
After all, productive members of society pay taxes, while the unemployed and imprisoned drain tax dollars (this is not at all to say that I don't support a social safety net, welfare, etc - I'd just rather help people, including felons, improve their lives such that they don;t need those programs).
Speaking of which...did I mention the fact that in some states felons can't even receive welfare?
We literally tell people who have already paid their debt to society that they should just go out and starve to death.
Gee, I wonder why they tend to commit more crimes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tangle, posted 10-30-2011 6:25 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 36 of 40 (639434)
10-31-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
10-30-2011 3:13 PM


Yeah, I think so. Contrary to what people think, revenge usually doesn't cycle. Your brother kills my uncle. I kill your brother.
That's usually the end of it. When you come to kill me, you complain that I killed your brother, I reply that he killed my uncle, and you would usually say "ok, yeah, I guess that's fair. How about you pay me some money and we'll call it a day?" I'm happy to pay because I got something I value - vengeance for my uncle.
That depends on your goal, crash.
My goal is a stable society with the maximum attainable percentage of productive citizens possible, and the maximum attainable contentment of the entire population.
I don't see how revenge as a concept serves to increase utility toward that goal. Revenge doesn't turn criminals into productive citizens. Revenge doesn't increase contentment overall.
Fun fact, as an aside - people who can't experience emotions are actually terrible decision-makers. You'd think someone like Spock or Data would be able to make decisions quickly and easily by subtracting the emotion out of it, just a quick comparison between pros and cons, but what we actually find with people who actually have no emotion is that they can't weigh pros and cons because they can't experience how good the pros are and how bad the cons are. And they can't experience the emotion of finality, the experience of actually feeling like you've decided, and as a result they never know when to stop deliberating and actually come to a conclusion.
Only because human beings find it difficult to address problems unemotionally. We tend to use our feelings to measure relative utility and value because we don;t have any other option - the human brain doesn't understand multiplication, three million people is just a number.
When we actually calculate out standard amounts of utility for each option, we can very easily see which option provides the most and make the decision accordingly.
For instance, if my goal is to maximize the percentage of productive citizens as compared to non-productive citizens, I can easily see that prison locks a person out of any productivity for at minimum the length of their sentence. Alternative sentencing that allows non-dangerous criminals to retain their jobs or even improve their opportunities by providing education and job placement creates a greater-than-zero rate of productivity even with a low statistical success rate, making it obviously superior to prison from the standpoint of that specific goal.
Obviously other factors like cost need to be examined as well for real solutions (which typically have more than one simple primary goal), but just as an example, objective and unemotional rational decision making is certainly more possible than you make it out to be.
And considering the fact that human emotion is irrational and the reason the "tough on crime" idiocy has gotten us where we are, I'd like to see you prove that emotionally-charged decision making is superior to emotionless, objective utility calculation based purely on data and the intended goal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2011 3:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024