Hacker News Reader

Comment by aisofteng | Hacker News Reader

Generally you get put in jail for committing crimes. How about we try to fix the reasons leading to people committing those crimes instead? Why is it so outlandish to suggest that people shouldn't commit crime in the first place?

You break the law, you go to jail. You keep doing it, you go back. If you have kids, stop doing things that can out you in jail, like a reasonable human being. And if certain communities have a culture where crime is accepted, well, doesn't seem to be much choice if they don't want to change.

Why is that becoming politically incorrect to say?

View on HN

"You break the law, you go to jail."

I think the argument is that there is nothing productive about sending people to prison. At least not as prison, prison time, and transitioning back to society is currently structured.

It's not better for society, it's not better for the victim (and what if there is no victim), and it's not better for the person going to jail.

So why do it? Why not take a more results based approach to preventing people from reoffending? Why not make it easier for them to reintegrate into society once they are out?

If all you want to do is punish people out of some need for retribution sure keep it up. But then you have to accept the costs that come with that need for retribution.

The productive part is preventing them from damaging public safety and the lives of others who choose not to do things that we have decided as a society to codify as illegal. If someone is robbing people in a neighborhood, say, how could not removing them possibly be the better choice?

How about removing the reasons they rob, or giving them the psychiatric help they need to prevent them from robbing someone?

I'd much rather have someone become a productive member of society then let them rot away in jail.

Do you own a house or a car? Lets take them away from you so they won't rob you.

Psychiatry doesn't work that way, man. You can't take a pill and become greatest neighbor on the block. Or solve everyone's problems and then live happily.

Your otherwise cool idea has no real implementations (communism doesn't count).

Uhh, yeah, I never said it was easy or simple. It's gonna take a lot of hard work to get people adjusted, and I don't believe we even can adjust everyone. But that approach is more realistic and successful than "don't commit crimes"

> Your otherwise cool idea has no real implementations (communism doesn't count).

Other than the fact that it has completely real and provable implementations:

http://www.alltreatment.com/drug-rehab-infographic

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could...

First link seems to be irrelevant since it only covers drug addiction that can be treated as mental disease, but other potential crimes can not. Second article shows reduction of violence in or after the jail, not reduction of violence per se. You cannot forcibly cure not-yet-guilty with that, and they aren't guilty until commit a crime. But it is great method on its own.

Those are just the first two links I found after 5 seconds of searching though. My points have been proven over and over and over by other studies.

No amount of studies can change the following: we still can't force non-guilty guys to psychiatrist (because they are free to just not go there), and guilty guys already are in jail. Where do you think this logic should be broken?

To not send them there and to cure instead? Organized crimes will grow on this scheme like mushrooms after rain.

To test and monitor everyone before they do something? That's what everyone is fighting with (Snowden et al).

Again, their idea is great, but it will never be elected in social context.

Oh yeah, totally. Using known proven methods for reducing crime is going to be a total waste of everyone's time. We should totally just put them in a box instead and not try to fix the root of the problem. Lets keep using the same methods that have been proven not to work because some people might be able to abuse another process.

/sarcasm

Okay, how would you implement that, exactly?

To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert in crime, prison, or socially integrating people back into society. I would start with listening to experts who have methods with reproducible results, however, which is something the US typically doesn't do when it comes to these issues.

> productive part is preventing them from damaging public safety and the lives of others

So y'all are doing the bare minimum over there? Well done you! Hope you catch up soon!

Yours,

The rest of the world

How is it not better for me, as a victim? Should we just let people who accuse socially trust and forge checks or commit acts of violence of the hook?

You surely never met people who understand nothing until their face is beaten into the dirt. Those in jail far too often just don't share your values, absolutely. You can't reintegrate a wolf into the herd without breaking his pride.

What about when the law is unfair and targets particular communities?

A simplistic "you break the law you go to jail" attitude sweeps the systematic injustices under the rug. Should we have just thrown Ghandi in jail and thrown away the key? How about Rosa Parks?

Laws aren't perfect and they won't be fixed if people are just blindingly following them. Sometimes laws are a vehicle of oppression rather than justice.

The cases you cite were examples of laws designed to target specific communities in their actual formulation, and which are now gone and deemed reprehensible.

If a community has a high degree of crime that is defined in terms of an act, such as robbery or violence, then high incarceration rates are the obvious effect. The solution is not to ignore that it's happening and let everyone else in those neighborhoods be subject to routine criminal activity. That's ludicrous.

There are indeed systemic flaws in some communities where power is abused. But that's because of those actors, not the laws themselves.

So your position is that while the laws were racist in the past it is no longer the case? I think you may be surprised at some of the laws and policies still on the books.

The worst part is that it is a self reinforcing cycle. Communities with high crime have heavy handed enforcement and are targeted with punitive laws. This results in many parents behind bars and a general distrust of the police, which combined with lack of opportunities creates another generation of career criminals. Breaking the cycle takes work from both sides, which is why it is important to address police (and law!) reform even if the community isn't responding. You need to keep the door open if you want to have even a chance, and removing the inherent racism in the laws--like making the penalties for crack cocaine much harsher than powdered because blacks use the former and wall street uses the latter.

It's funny that you suggest to fix the reasons leading to people committing crimes and then advocate for some of the reasons leading to people committing crimes: growing up with parents in jail or unable to hold steady work because of having been in jail.

It's a cycle. Throwing your hands up and saying, "well, stop going to jail!" isn't going to break the cycle.

So is your alternative to let kids grow up with full-time criminal parents? I find it hard to believe that children are more likely to become criminals themselves if their parents are behind bars(i.e. not in the picture most of the time).

And how would normalizing crime and having children be raised by people that engage in it as a part of life the solution?

You've oversimplified my statement to the point of absurdity. There are potentially many other ways to address those problems that do not require just letting people go after they commit crimes.

You probably break 5 laws every day and do not even know it. There are so many things that are against the law that it is nearly impossible to not be guilty of something. This is by design, allowing these multitudes of laws to be selectively enforced on certain people. "Stop committing crimes" is an overly simplistic response.

Actually, I'm very confident that I do not engage in any behavior that is punishable with jail time.

Claiming that our current system of laws was created in order to be able to target people at will is an extraordinary statement that will require some pretty strong evidence.

While I can have no idea what you would deem to be strong evidence, swift Googling can point you to published research from sociologists, et al, about bias and other behaviors that make the justice system dramatically less impartial than it's intended to be. Recent WaPo story, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/24/resea...

Having some degree of biased participants in a national system does not in any way imply that that system was designed to be able to maliciously target individuals at will. That leap of logic is simply irrational to a concerning degree.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_t...

> Generally you get put in jail for committing crimes.

That is true for prisons, but not jails. There is a big difference. Most people in jails are awaiting trials/hearings or other procedures. They haven't been convicted. I'd say not convicted 'yet' but an increasing number are never convicted. That doesn't mean they are innocent. Some are, but they may also go to diversionary programs without convictions.

Many individuals are held in jails pending psychiatric evaluations, after which no charges are brought as no prosecutable crime has been committed. And there is a very small subset of persons, material witnesses, who are held in jails without any suggestion that they have committed any crime.

Children certainly don't see much of a difference between jail and prison, but that's the problem. We too casually jail people without actual convictions and pretend it's OK because they aren't being held as convicts. But the kids are impacted just the same.

> We too casually jail people without actual convictions and pretend it's OK because they aren't being held as convicts. But the kids are impacted just the same.

Is there a better alternative? And are you suggesting that a significant number of people are being held in jail indefinitely without convictions? I find that hard to believe. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I don't know that it's as much of a problem as you seem to be framing it to be.

Go to any US jail. A large number of persons are in a form of indefinite detention awaiting proceedings that are regularly and repeatedly delayed. A prisoner in a prison can mark his exit date on a calender. Someone awaiting trial in a jail has no such definitive answer. Some could be released, but cannot afford the fees necessary to get a bail bond. Those are a real problem, people who are safe to release but too poor to afford it.

The only convicts in jails are those serving sentences of less than a year. Anything greater than that goes to a prison, give or take depending on circumstances. So yes, there is a very large population of persons in jails without convictions. That's what they are for.

The answer is probably a better-resourced court system capable of processing hearings more efficiently. Remember the tv-series Night Court? Night courts were meant to accelerate the process of hearings and get people out on bail more quickly. They didn't handle trials. They have almost disappeared today.

This is about fixing the reasons leading people to commit those crimes in the first place.

Let me tell you a story.

A friend of mine helps convicts with societal reintegration.

One of the guys he was working with, we'll call him Mark, had dealt heroin. Did his time (3-5 years, I think), had gotten serious in prison about his life and responsibilities (4 kids by 3 different women), and decided when he got out he was going to stay clean, get an honest job, and do what he could to take care of his kids.

He had child support judgements against him before and during his time in prison, and he owed something like $30k in back support. So, after he gets out, he has to go to the family court judge and tells him, "Sir, I know I have responsibility to my kids, and I want to repay what I owe on my child support. I'm working on getting a job, what do I have to do to meet my obligations?" Family court judge helps work out a plan whereby Mark is not going to be held in contempt for his back support as long as he makes his current payments. Mark sleeps on couches, eats ramen, walks 2 hours to work the each way to work the night shift, (can't get an apt near work without 3+ months of deposit because he has a felony) saves as much as he can while paying his child support, spends time with his kids every weekend, finally saves enough to by a car. Not a nice car, an older beater, but now he doesn't have to walk to work, and he can go pick up his kids, take them to the park, etc, etc. He's saving up so he can get his own apartment and not have to sleep on couches in the neighborhood where he is surrounded by his old friends that are trying to get him back into dealing.

Mark is doing lots of hard work now. When he was dealing, he drove new cars, partied, always had money. Now he's going through the grind of constantly having to make the right choices, but doing good.

Did you remember Mark's old car? Well, he didn't realize that the taillight had gone out. Mark's night shift job was in a 'whiter' part of town. Mark's black. Mark got stopped for having a tail light out. Mark's license check showed that he was in contempt for back support because some clerk didn't file his repayment plan correctly or something. Mark went to jail. Mark's apartment deposit went to bail, and he only got 75% back. Mark's car got impounded because he had to spend 48 hrs overnight and his one phone call couldn't cover getting his car in time, and his deposit dropped another couple hundred dollars.

Mark's doing OK now, he was able to get some help and get his apartment and keep doing what he needs to do. But that's largely because he had some white friends help him navigate the system. I could tell you have a dozen other stories of guys like Mark who had something similar happen and say, "Even if I do what's right, the man is going to get me. Why bother?" And kids internalize these stories, and then they don't even want to make the changes.

Sometimes, the reasons for crimes are that being a reasonable human being says there's no reason not to commit crime.

The problem is partly brought on by technology. For example, the apartment complex which requires 3 months' deposit for felons can only do so because court records have been converted to indexed databases on networked systems, so it is easy and cheap for the apartment owner to pull Mark's criminal history.

In the past, the openness of court records was balanced by the difficulty of figuring out the right courthouse, physically driving there and going over stacks of dusty paper files. Technology has destroyed that balance; citizens can no longer expect any degree of privacy with respect to their history with the criminal justice system.

As a society we need to strike a balance between the privacy of individual defendants, the necessity of open records as a check on the government's power, and the apartment owner's right to set criteria for their tenants.

You point to a whole multitude of severe issues that need to be fixed, such as reintegration after served time and leniency towards those making an honest effort to lead good lives. But removing punishment for things we agree as a society are crimes - such as dealing heroin - won't improve any of those and will just normalize crime.

The problem highlighted is that the punishment doesn't end once you leave jail and have done your time. Society continues to punish. You might think they deserve it - and maybe they do - but that won't solve the underlying problem. All the severe issues that need to be fixed are exactly why saying, "just don't go to jail" isn't remotely helpful or reasonable. Not everyone is perfect and some will make very poor decisions that land them in jail. What we as a society should avoid is then making that the start of another cycle of criminality.

Right, but suggesting to simply not send people to jail for crime because there are further repercussions to doing so doesn't in any way reasonably suggest to simply stop sending people to jail for crime. It suggests to fix the unfair repercussions.

Another consideration is perhaps not all crimes that currently carry jail time as a penalty should. Is jailing someone for carrying a small amount of marijuana really in the best interest of society once the true costs are realized? Not all crimes have to be punished with imprisonment; in fact, not all crimes are.

I read your post and the article, but don't recognize either my argument or the argument the parent article is making. Nowhere does the article say to abolish punishment for crimes, and I'm certainly not calling for the abolishment of punishment for crimes. Rather, look at Mark's example. By not saying, "forget this, I'm going back to selling drugs", he is making what is perhaps an unreasonable decision from many viewpoints. Crime is already normalized in many communities, because of internal and external factors, and those communities are suffering for it. The article is pointing out that deficiencies in parenting due to incarceration are a significant contributor to the continuation of crime.

I'm additionally pointing out that when you said a reasonable human being won't commit crime, that does not seem to be to be the case. There are plenty of reasons why a reasonable human being will come to the conclusion that it is reasonable to commit crimes, especially when those making a solid effort not to commit crime can be arbitrarily punished for someone else's mistake.

The US incarcerates very many more people than other western nations.

How's it working?

And what about people who don't commit crimes, but end up in jail? It's silly to think the system has no corruption, especially with consistent evidence otherwise.

How many cases are there nationally where someone is put in jail for no crime at all?

If you suggest that it's a common enough occurrence to justify removing prison as a punishment, you'll have to give some number showing that this is extremely common.

A) That is a pretty easy google search. First result I got: https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

B) That's quite a logic leap that you put in my mouth there. I never said we should remove prison as punishment.

While I agree with you, it is more complicated than that. Not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal in the sense we use to think about it.

For instance, once I had a car accident and hit a wall. Just a few meters from impact there were people standing, I could have killed them. Luckily, no one but me got hurt.

I'm not a bad person, I never did anything wrong my entire life. But for a matter of meters I could have spent years in prison for manslaughter.

Frankly I wonder how you hit a wall without having done anything reckless or dangerous yourself; if someone else hit you off the road, the yes they would likely be responsible for causing people to get killed. If you just did it on your own, then that would indeed be manslaugher. You'd have taken the lives of a family. How could you argue that that would in any way be okay?

> Frankly I wonder how you hit a wall without having done anything reckless or dangerous yourself

You are just being a jerk, making assumptions and being judgmental. You obviously never heard of "innocent until proved guilty".

> You'd have taken the lives of a family.

Who said "family"?

> How could you argue that that would in any way be okay?

When did I said that? That it would be okay? I never said anything like that. Frankly, your reading comprehension skills are below par.

My point, in the context of the discussion, is that good, innocent, hard-working people sometimes also go to jail due to circumstances beyond their control.

Accidents happen, and not always due to recklessness. Maybe you have super-human driving skills with sub nanosecond reaction times. Maybe you are flawless, faultless, perfect. Most people aren't that exemplary.

"The road is a source of danger". It wasn't intent, but you lost concentration, lost control, etc., performed a thing called "dangerous driving". I know man who killed a child in similar accident. 3-5km/h, he just jumped on his bumper from nowhere and died. He could do that with a fence, but instead chose his car. That's why YOU have to be aware of everything going on around. If you don't know what's there behind an obstacle, you must assume it is full of children, families and sudden walls. We now have many devices that kill people when we neglect boring rules.

>My point, in the context of the discussion, is that good, innocent, hard-working people sometimes also go to jail due to circumstances beyond their control.

Ideally, jailtime should end when "innocent beyond my control" in their mind becomes "that was definitely my fault because I often drive tired and that will happen again if I continue". Otherwise it is like saying "It wasn't me, it was a bullet! I just pulled trigger."

Sorry, but I just don't see how driving into a wall, which is quite stationary, with enough force to have killed someone had they been standing there, is an unavoidable mistake anyone could make.

That you are apparently suggesting lanna is a criminal yet is walking free is yet more evidence that your position lacks the necessary nuance.

No, I'm saying that there's no such thing as innocently driving into a wall and killing people, which apparently almost happened. It would actually have been manslaughter.

I am well aware that that's exactly what you're saying. It's sad that you can come up with a valid premise but can't take the comparatively dull step of following it to its logical conclusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com