Hacker News Reader

What is the average number of property crimes committed before a criminal is arrested and jailed? The crew that robbed my home hasn't been arrested for that crime. When (if) they are eventually caught, I want them locked up.

Would you rather they pay you back than cause 30k+ per year to the taxpayer. How about they are in a job program and earn it back for you and garnished wages until it is paid.

Also did you have insurance? Did it cover it? Do you need someone locked in a box for years because of it? Is it that level of crime? What if you have a son and he did it, would you want him turned into a lifetime criminal? Our current system is basically locking people into a life of crime and bringing criminals together to further spiral into it.

There's a difference between Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's dying child and an organized crew which makes a living from robbing houses. The former is a great candidate for a job program. The latter already have their own job problem; it's just rather antisocial.

There's not enough jobs as it is, why should Criminals get jobs, when lawful citizens can't find employment? But I'll entertain your idea.

Say Jean valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his family (highly unlikely), then let's make the punishment of his crime, to replenish that item by working (but not like labor camps of course). Jean would have to work on a farm, planting seeds, pulling weeds from the wheat field, in the hot sun along side illegal immigrants. That should be punishment enough right? But before he could return to normal American life, he'd first have to sign a promissory note to his allegiance with the Democratic party . Sounds like awin-win. Who needs food stamps? Ah so here we are, reducing illegal immigration while helping poor Jean recover himself. Let's send a letter to Congress.

No. I would rather they go to jail.

I had insurance, it did not cover all of the losses. Assuming this wasn't the first house they robbed, there are many people who suffered losses as well.

I do have a son and I would be very unhappy if he started robbing houses. Because of this, I consider it my responsibility to raise him correctly. A concept that seems sadly out of fashion these days.

Why would you rather? Do you know what goes on there?

I guess the question is how much would you pay from your own salary to lock them up. Because we are paying. Are we getting our money's worth?

I pay taxes from my salary and a portion of those taxes goes to pay prisons. I would be happy to pay more.

Why do you want them locked up?

The things I'd like to happen are: 1) Reduce the liklihood that these people will commit further crimes 2) Discourage other people from robbing homes 3) Help you replace the things you lost

I'm not really familiar with the literature on this, but I'd guess there are more effective options than prison for all three of those.

I want them locked up, so they don't commit more crimes. Obviously the police don't catch every criminal that commits every crime. So catching them and locking them prevents them from committing more crimes.

> I want them locked up, so they don't commit more crimes.

Do you have evidence that prison actually reduces future crimes?

I think he's getting at the fact that if they're in a cage they can't commit crimes while in there (sorta). Recidivism rates would suggest that prison doesn't actually do much to prevent future crime unless they're physically in the prison.

> I think he's getting at the fact that if they're in a cage they can't commit crimes while in there

Yeah, that's what I suspected. To me, that line of thinking feels short-sighted and/or motivated by revenge rather than rationality.

> Recidivism rates

In the US.

It reduces it 100% on the people that aren't let out again. Which suggests that we should be looking at life in prison, rather than shorter sentences if we really want crime to go down and we are conserned about them becoming hard-core criminals.

Actually though I think there is a mismatch - there are two groups here, those who made a mistake but are fundamentally good people (they perhaps have a drinking problem or a drug problem, fell into a bad crowd, etc) those should probably not be put in jail, but more a closed treatment center, put on parole, sentenced to community service, etc. The idiots who stole my wheel-caps probably belongs here, as would somebody who killed their spouse because they abused them - it is not okay, but it doesn't make them unredeamably bad people.

Then there are the people who are just scum, the [mum who goes out to drink, leaving her toddler at home](http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2016/05/09/new-rochell...), the gang members, the people who commits rape, etc. Those just needs to be locked up, forever if possible.

It appear to me that both sides of this debate are only focusing on one of the sub groups and are trying to apply rules evenly, without first looking at the criminal. This will absolutely result in injustices, either by throwing a 17 year old in prison for life with out the possibility of parole for [killing her pimp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Kruzan) or releasing criminals who will go on to do more criminal acts.

I don't know that you're considering a couple things: 1. people are locked up not just to punish them since they committed a crime but also to keep society just that much safer from that criminal and 2. you assume most people have sufficient insurance to replace their stolen vehicle and that they have alternate transportation to get to their job or to pick up/drop off their kids. I know folks with liability only insurance that just barely scrape by and if they didn't have their car for just 1 day they wouldn't be able to do the things I listed.

Criminals do work in prison as well such as producing goods (various forms of apparel) or performing services (landscaping and picking up trash). Considering they're not entitled to minimum wage, their cost of labor is extremely low and one doesn't need to sell a given product for much of a high price at all to make a profit. That profit gets reinvested back into the economy in one form or another so I'd argue the taxpayers are getting most, if not all, of their money back.

Furthermore, those who resort to stealing cars seem to have decided they're not going to get an honest job and since the car-stealing business probably isn't very consistent compared to working a retail job then I'd argue they don't have the requisite history of pay that affords them the ability to repay their debt to society.

The existence of those jobs is a insult to the species.

There are 200k federal prisoners out of about 1600k total. The fact that federal numbers are 50% drugs doesn't change the fact that the overall numbers.

If we let out our non-violent criminals, then the prison population will only be cut by half. The majority of people in prison are violent criminals.

Is it violent to sell drugs/alcohol to a minor?

Does "violent" cover emotional abuse?

How would you rather deal with such crimes?

Fines, repeated violations rise up the amount and possibly barring licenses, restraining orders, rehab programs, mental health, and more. Until it is violent there should not be an authority abducting and locking up someone causing tax payer dollars to be further wasted and creating more problems.

So under your system, a person can steal without the threat of jail so long as they don't do it violently. Hard to see the downsides of such a system.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's the threat of punishment that stops criminals. Going on the criminals I know (crap evidence, I know), excluding the total psychopaths, what has stopped them is guilt for hurting people and/or wanting to be a better role model to their kids/siblings/younger kids that look up to them. All that the justice system seems to do is take away their ability to make legal income and years of their life.

For the criminals lacking empathy, I don't know of a good solution to preventing them from hurting people.

Fines? - People who steal or sell drugs, do it because they believe they can't survive any other way! Additionally, what if people cannot and do not pay fines? You have a recursive problem right? Are you gonna fine people who cannot pay a fine? Or would you like to add an amendment to your system to put people who cannot afford fines in jail?

Barring licenses? - Why do they need licenses? If they get caught, they'll just "pay" a fine right?

Restraining orders? - Why would they accommodate?

Rehab programs? - Isn't this what prison[0] is supposed to be? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)?

Mental health? - Isn't this just prison[0] with pills? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)?

Please don't misunderstand me, I respect and would love to see a better system. I'm even convinced you're on the right path. I just don't think its as easy as you seemed to state.

[0] Where prison is defined: "something that locks you up"

The alternative is locking them up and creating lifetime criminals.

We need to separate criminals and give them new communities to find worth in for the most part. Most people don't commit crimes because they want to. If you can separate them from the criminal element, find worth and independence, that is the solution.

I think putting them up with other criminals is like a crime university, it will be all they know. Prison is supposed to be rehabilitation but it creates hardened criminal elements.

Your better system is taking people and locking them up together and then charging the tax payer 30k per annum, even if they pay no fines they are still causing less budget.

There aren't any easy solutions but that is mostly wrong for non-violent and low level offenses like drug crimes.

This Norway prison has prisoners work on a farm/island as an example of a new community. [1] It has some of the lowest recidivism in the world. Sometimes people in poverty have never been treated like humans, maybe if you apply this to them then certainly a percentage would see worth. The other harsher ways are creating more re-offenders in the US system (the main problem of this article).

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bas...