Hacker News Reader

Comment by briandear | Hacker News Reader

We could apply the same logic to life imprisonment. An innocent person forced to endure the absolute horror or life imprisonment -- I would rather die.

What's the difference? Dead or locked in a horrible box for life? We euthanize sick cats; we don't make them suffer needlessly. I would argue life imprisonment is a punishment more severe than death.

Just by way of disclosure, I have witnessed two executions in Texas back when I worked for Reuters. I spent a lot of time on death row, interviewing prisoners as well as families, so I don't have a positive feeling about the death penalty... however I contend that life inprisonment is even worse.

View on HN

I was not saying that the justice system should avoid pain to the guilty but rather work on a principle of least harm. If a person has slain several people, and it is likely he will do so again, society might be better off with the person locked away. A life imprisonment can be, if not canceled, then terminated and amended financially.

It of course depends on the nature of the prison. I would claim it could be just like a regular apartment - except you can't leave. There is no reason for it to be doomy , gloomy and grimy if the raison detre is to protect the society from the person locked away.

I think norway's treatment of prisoners is great example of how to do this as sensibly as possible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway

One of the major purposes of prisons is deterrence, and for that prisons need to be awful.

In theory, harsh prison conditions deter would-be criminals.

Do you have any evidence that reality conforms to this theory?

>>Do you have any evidence that reality conforms to this theory?

Do you have any evidence that reality doesn't conform to this theory?

Not a counter-question just for the sake of counter-questioning; I am sincerely interested in knowing.

The US has harsh sentences and high crime.

Is it possible we would have higher crime with lighter sentences?

This in itself doesn't prove anything. Compared to what it's harsh and high? e.g. China may have harsher sentences and lower crime.

While longer prison sentences do deter crime up to a point ( http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal...) I've not seen any data that would grade effectiveness of prisons based on their awfullness. No matter how "cushy" the prison environment is, it's still a prison. Awful prisons only dehumanize convicts and guards alike for no purpose.

Why not make it a choice for the prisoner to make then? Perhaps we could have life in prison by default, but make humane state-assisted suicide available at any time.

If you're imprisoned for years and then found to be actually innocent, you can go home. That can't happen if they already chopped your head off.

No you can't - because your home no longer exists, and I don't just mean bricks and mortar.

You can however, make a new home.

But the world has moved on, you have no employable skills, there is stigma still attached to having been inside... And the compensation is a paltry amount and you will be billed for your food and accomodation while inside (yes really).

> And the compensation is a paltry amount

Then that's what should be fixed, isn't it? The amount should be substantial enough to a) be a significant deterrent for future screwups and b) support the former prisoner indefinitely.

Then you can kill yourself. But you undeniably have more freedom and opportunity than a dead person.

...you will be billed for your food and accomodation while inside

That's a bill that probably won't get paid. What are they going to do, throw me in prison?

I believe it gets extracted before you get your compensation paid.

That is so awful on so many levels. "Hey, we kept you locked up against your will, but you did eat our prison food, so we're going to take that out of the money we should be paying you for imprisoning the innocent".

It's awful, yes, but I can kind of see the logic behind it. Barely.

The emotional damage makes that hard.

Hard is better than impossible.

"however I contend that life inprisonment is even worse"

Possibly that's an appropriate punishment then, for the very worst of offenders.

I honestly think that life imprisonment is an atrocity. Long-term imprisonment in general is a racket, too: what difference is there really between an eleven- and a twelve-year sentence? Why does every inmate automatically start off with ⅔ of his sentence, and then get extra days added for bad behaviour?

I think above a few months, imprisonment probably isn't the answer. We should explore alternatives: corporal punishment (wouldn't you rather a single lash than a year in prison?), fines, slavery (why not make someone who commits manslaughter work for the victim's family for a decade, rather than sit in prison for a decade?) and, yes, execution (which is, I contend, more humane than long-term imprisonment).

I don't really know what the answer is, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't involve years of prison.

Couldn't community service be viewed as a form of slave labor? (not literally, but to an extent)

> Couldn't community service be viewed as a form of slave labor? (not literally, but to an extent)

I think it literally is, which is why I think requiring it in order to graduate from high school or college is uncouth and unconstitutional (likewise, the draft).

I have no problem with it as a punishment for crime, although I do have concerns about the efficacy and efficiency of how it is administered. Does it make sense for someone with high-value skills to be cleaning toilets as community service?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com