Hacker News Reader

What.... this is so wrong, so disconnected, so cold.

You think you can take convicts, put them in a small box with nothing but "enriching material" and have a productive member of society pop out after a few years?

What about the exact opposite of what you proposed?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why...

Not a chance. Human interaction is crucial to rehabilitation - what do you think the recidivism rates would be like for a person who hasn't had a real interaction with someone in months or years? The goal should be to make prison more like the world outside, not less. This sounds more inhumane than the existing model, and that's saying something.

There is human interaction. Via videophone. We isolate people from bad influences, though.

People say "omg mental illness" but this kind of thing has never even been tried in the Skype age.

The goal is to make it more like the outside world, in important ways. We take people who live among bad influences and instead of immersing them in a world of even worse influences we put them in an environment where they're surrounded by positive influences (without being allowed to forget that, yes, they're in prison.)

Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though?

Because to treat a human being like they are not a human being makes you evil.

> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

Data says: no. Beyond the simple deterrence of losing one's liberty (which is significant), the harshness of prison has no real deterrent effect -- but does serve to acclimate prisoners to violence, coercion, and anti-social behaviour. What prison does is rehabilitate, or fail to rehabilitate. That is the metric which matters.

> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

I don't think this is true. More precisely, it's obviously true that extremes can change how much of a deterrent effect there is, (e.g. if prison is a 5-star resort people might prefer to be inside than out), but your position is like trickle-down economics.

The Laffer curve certainly exists in the sense that governments collect less revenue from taxing either 0% or 100% than they do from some intermediate amount. But using this tautology to assert we should categorically lower taxes ignores the crucial question of where we are in that curve.

Importantly there seems to be a fairly inelastic response to changes in sentencing; drastic changes in sentencing seem not to generally change criminal behaviour (see a wealth of statistics on the death penalty, also the crime rate collapse since the 90's).

To decide whether we want to make prisons more or less humane we need to address the purpose of prisons. If you think prisons are primarily for justice/punishment, I'd urge you to consider the numerous lapses of our legal system, the fact that ~95% of prosecutions end in plea bargains instead of trials, endemic prosecutorial overreach, and the severe shortage of adequate counsel/public defenders for the poor. Additionally, consider the "three felonies a day" complaint --- that laws are poorly and vaguely written, general to the point of absurdity, and opaque --- which means that you could probably be convicted of something by a sufficiently zealous prosecutor.

If you think prisons are primarily about effecting good outcomes for the rest of society I'd argue that a system that focuses on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism will necessarily be more humane.

Finally, as others have said though it bears repeating, we (as society) should treat people humanely. Full Stop. Not because they are human, but because we are.

It's not even a "curve" really, it's simply an observation that 0% tax and 100% are probably local-minima.

Because they're human? Because wrongful convictions happen? Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.[1]

[1] -pdf warning http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%2...

> Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.

Good point. I suspect its even more based on the perceived marginal increase in likelihood of punishment if an act which is intended to be deterred is committed vs. if it is not. Certainty of punishment is one factor that weighs in that, but certainty of nonpunishment of the act is not committed is also a factor.

>Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though?

Because criminals are still human. I can't believe I have to actually say that...

Evidence? Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes. They might think about whether they will be caught.

> Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes

Selection bias. The sort of people who think about prison when committing crimes are the sort of people who don't commit crimes.

The criminal class is drawn almost entirely from those who suck at thinking ahead.

Getting a strong Poe's Law vibe here. Are you asking why humans need to be treated humanely?

Because they're human beings. Torture is evil.

> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though?

Answered in the post you respond to: "Human interaction is crucial to rehabilitation"

You got downvoted, but I think this is an interesting idea.

I don't think it is great to be applied as a default to everyone, but if I were forced to go to prison as the person I am today, I would opt for this in a heart beat over being exposed to the general prison population as the risks of that far outweigh spending lots of time alone reading/learning. I know I can do the latter--I don't know that I can do the former and come out unscathed. So for me it all comes down to risk.

Exactly. I spent 40 days in prison once, on a cell with 12 or 13 other dudes... I would gladly take the isolation. I would lose the dozen or so blunts I smoke with some of the cool dudes with whom I had common friends, but I would be first in line for that isolation and some books.

Thanks for bringing up another important point: today's prisons are rife with drugs. Won't be easy getting drugs in my prison, so everyone will come out clean.

You realize that constant isolation tends to lead to psychological disorders, right? I'm not sure if you meant your post in jest, but I thought I point that one problem out.

Regular solitary confinement is complete sensory deprivation. I'm talking about enriched solitary confinement with lots to keep the prisoner busy and occupied.

Um, no. As someone who's dealt with supposed enriched solitary confinement (self-imposed) it doesn't work out. You still get mentally disordered. It's just a fact of life that humans have to socialize to stay relatively sane.

No offence but are you sure you weren't already disordered, and that's how you came to wind up solitaries confining yourself?

Jesus fucking christ man.

Of course he was ("disordered", to use your phrasing), and of course we all are, to some greater or lesser extent. I spent a few months in self-imposed isolation in my adolescence, and yes, I was already fucked up going into it, but there's just no way of slicing it where those were anything other than the most self-destructive, dysfunctional, long-term-devastating months of my life. Fortunately I had people in my life who cared about me and pulled me out of it - far too late to prevent my social development from being permanently castrated, but I've always been stubborn, at least I'm able, a decade later, to be a more-or-less functional adult in my day-to-day life.

Subjecting other people to this goes so far past "cruel and unusual" that idonteven - what the hell - you yourself have got to be pretty much entirely forfeit to think this would somehow be a positive experience for a human being. Jesus. fucking. christ.

And yeah, for the record,, that comment would be highly offensive, if the ability to feel offence and outrage weren't one of the casualties a mere 12 weeks of what you're advocating as a rehabilitation mechanism. The mind boggles.

No offence, but do you even have scientific evidence that there can be a form of semi-permanent to permanent isolation which is psychologically healthy for any human beings? Even ascetic monks have to interact from time to time before they crack. Humans didn't evolve for isolation.

> I'd pick the enriched solitary confinement over having to socialise with the general prison population any day, wouldn't you?

Do have experience with either? I believe the "enriched" solitary confinement you're proposing would be more maddening than you think. I agree that the US has a problem with criminals creating new networks inside of prisons, but stripping away all real interaction is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Functioning members of society need to know how to interact with each other. If you believe that prisons should rehabilitate, you should agree that they need to encourage safe, respectful, and real interaction with strangers.

I vote if he commits any crime, he be sent to solitary confinement till he's on the edge of insanity.

Solitary confinement is one of the most terrible things that can be done to a human being, and is very comparable to being 'sucked' by Dementors (from Harry Potter. The creatures that suck your soul away and leave and soulless zombie, that while not dead, is not entirely alive).

At which point they'll be disabled and not be capable of making it outside of an institutional environment. As such, they will be costing society much more money for a much, much longer time. What you're talking about is torture, ripping someone's mind apart for your sick, demented sense of justice.

> I vote if he commits any crime, he be sent to solitary confinement till he's on the edge of insanity.

Would you be willing to be a test case? If you live in the US, you've probably committed several felonies already[1].

[1] http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...

> although that privilege would be monitored and revoked

Monitoring video-chat would require more guards, not fewer.

Delivering food to each cell would take more staff, not fewer.

> it would certainly be more pleasant for first-time offenders who don't fit into key prison demographics like the senator or probably you or I.

Are you proposing "enhanced solitary" for all inmates, or just the ex-senators?

> Monitoring video-chat would require more guards, not fewer. >Delivering food to each cell would take more staff, not fewer.

I looked up "guard to inmate ratio" and apparently about 1:5 is standard. So that's what we're trying to beat.

Delivering food to each cell takes very little manpower. You'd only need to drop food once a day -- a hot dinner, plus some cold food for breakfast and lunch. (See? We're already teaching our prisoners important life skills, like thinking ahead -- don't eat all that food immediately or you'll be hungry at lunchtime tomorrow! They'll learn that one in a few days.) One guy could easily serve hundreds of cells, over a period of a couple of hours. (Think about flight attendants... heck, think about mailmen.)

As for monitoring video chat, that would take some manpower, but you wouldn't need to monitor every chat all the time, you'd just pop in every now and then to make sure people weren't forming the wrong kinds of relationships.

> Are you proposing "enhanced solitary" for all inmates, or just the ex-senators?

All inmates. There's probably some for whom it would be less pleasant -- e.g. the gang leaders who currently enjoy high status among their fellow prisoners. It would be a lot more pleasant for those who don't come from traditional prison demographics. That's fine, we're trying to make prison equally pleasant/unpleasant for everybody.

It sounds like you've put just as much thought into prisons as the people who've come up with our current prisons, and come up with a solution that is probably just as awful.

> I'd pick the enriched solitary confinement over having to socialise with the general prison population any day, wouldn't you?

I bet you wouldn't after a few months.

I also bet you wouldn't be well suited to getting out afterwards either. Prison should be about rehabilitation, and what your proposing is to isolate someone from society completely.

>what your proposing is to isolate someone from society completely //

I think his motivation is right, to isolate inmates from the rarefied society that forms in prisons and instead to provide contact only to beneficial interactions and through useful means.

What people probably need to enable their rehabilitation is to be relatively confined but not allowed to mix with other prisoners, instead getting human interaction - if they behave well - with non-criminals who can be emotional supportive, provide aspirations, provide companionship that does not involve drug seeking or sexual power plays, etc..

The apparent motive seems worthy.

I've been thinking a lot of "how would it work if it was an Artificial Intelligence".

I don't think any kind of AI would learn to live in society by being all alone, and i have a hard time understanding how any natural intelligence would work differently.

Not to get too tangential, but there was something called the Auburn System[1] which, well, seemed pretty effective from what I've understood. Both in the sense that it was so undesirable to be there, and also that obtaining a working skill would increase a person's utility on the outside. Not that some of the methods used aren't essentially torture, but the silence factor has me very intrigued.

Part of me is pretty interested in this subject and a little familiar because a former associate of mine wrote an incredible - if not authoritative - thesis on the prisons in the Antebellum south before the Civil War. I learned a lot about the subject by proxy, and it's quite apparent to me modern society has pretty much ignored any and all lessons that could be relevant from that part of history.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_system

So basically the beginning of Old Boy?

I understand the sentiment but humans crave and need social interaction. They go crazy without it. If anything, the status quo in jails today only prove that point; among all these hardened criminals, the most feared punishment is to be locked in a room by themselves. It makes sense that you're trying to give them something with which to engage themselves, but it's not an adequate replacement.

Prison is difficult because it's hard to find a one-size-fits-all solution. There are some people who are only held back because they don't have access to information, but there are also people who would destroy a computer or book if you let them use it.

It seems like the root of the problem is that prison supervisors may not have the flexibility or the interest in really picking out the prisoners that are unworkable and those that just need some tutoring, and that once a prisoner is released, it's difficult to get make money legally. There is no one dedicated to their success on the inside or outside. This is probably because most people don't want to work with prisoners and the BOP is not willing to make up that reluctance with the cash necessary to get good people in the door.

Shrug. I'd take that option, too. Solitary confinement as practiced is not just solitude but a near-total absence of stimulation. Put a computer in my private prison cell and that's practically my life as it is anyway. But you have to understand that to most criminals, the general population is their peer group--perfectly enjoyable people to be around. They're effectively locked up with their friends.

I think your idea is only acceptable as an alternative to existing solitary confinement practices, for prisoners who cannot interact with anyone in person without violence.

I do agree that prisoners need more contact with people other than other prisoners and guards, but the way to do that is to make a prison closer to a last-resort punishment and to give those that are subjected to it zero-cost phone calls, video chat, therapy, etc.

Hm, I don't know.

That sounds plausible, but I think there would /at least/ have to be some changes.

For example, some amount of checking on seems important for medical safety. Perhaps not much, but some.

The things I've heard about solitary seem to suggest that part of it is, as you suggest, lack of anything to do, and maybe that is most of it? I'm not sure. Would having information to study be enough to not alienate them from other people? I'm not sure it would be. How much human interaction is necessary?

Would providing a source of news be expensive, and would it cause any problems? Would it help anything?

So, I can see some advantages of your proposal, but I'm not sure whether it would be sufficiently safe . (Whether is is sufficiently unlikely to cause significant harm)

Don't ever buy any pets ok?