Study finds putting people in prison increases re-offence rate vs. probation
dailycal.org
dailycal.org
I've been to prison. Convicted of assault when I turned 18 years old. At 20, I was released and the system provided no re-integration efforts for me. In Feb 2003, I was homeless, no family, and I lost all my friends.
I applied for over 100 jobs while sleeping in the back of an abandoned car with no luck.
Finally I lied to get employment at a local McDonald's. Then I begged a literally insane person to let me sleep on her couch until I received enough money to get a place of my own. I had to pay her in sperm donations (as she wanted a child).
I had to steal food to eat in those first few months.
On top of that, I had $18,000 in restitution and 10 years of probation. If I missed payments, I'd go back to prison.
Fast forward 10 years, I put myself through college, paid off the restitution in full, got off probation 5 years early, moved the hell away from my home town, and built a million dollar company.
I got curious a few years ago and looked up all my fellow inmates. 100% of them were back in prison.
When I think of how lucky I am to have escaped that life, I have no words...
Being a company owner, would you be more or less likely to hire folks with a criminal record based on your experience?
I never ask if a person has been arrested/convicted of a felony during the hiring process. People can do great work regardless if they're black, white, male, female, immigrant, or felon.
I've never been to prison, but I have been homeless for months; battled addiction; jailed for minor offense; still haven't achieved a higher education. Still though, now I'm an engineer at Google.
What we can find is that being ashamed of our past is a very limited way of thinking. There are millions of people out there who can benefit from our struggle. People in better situations and worse situations. The more we share our stories, it helps society as a whole.
And, really, that's what this is all about, isn't it?
Would love to read your book, and would definitely endorse it. Hell, I'd would be interested talking more sometime as well. Add me to your mailing list if you have one! Email: hello@wyatt.engineer
I wrote the book thinking about the people I could be helping, but I don't publish it because I finally feel "free." I'm not sure if it's an irrational fear, or something I need therapy for, but the idea of going back to how I felt is something that I'm not ready for right now.
Quick story for emphasis:
In 2011, just as my company was off the ground, I found out I had a warrant for my arrest. When you're on probation and you are convicted of another crime, you serve length of probation + new crime. In my case even though I was not on active probation, my unsupervised probation cited that I would serve 10 years plus new crime.
The people who know me today would describe me as very stable and light-hearted/funny. When I got that warrant notice, I had a complete meltdown. I left work, physically ran to my apartment, and locked myself away. I was informed on a Friday, so my attorney couldn't get back to me until Monday with all the information as to why I was being warranted.
The reason? It turns out the State that I moved away from had lost all the records of me paying my restitution.
Lucky for me, I'd been carrying those receipts around for nearly 10 years at that point. I photocopied every single one of them and a week later, the warrant was revoked.
I lived in chaos after prison for years, and in fear for more than 10 years. I just need a bit more time to heal up before I'm ready.
I'm away from SF (where I typically live) for a few more months, but I'll reach out when I'm back.
Looking forward to your contact :)
When I write a book (people have been encouraging me for a while now) I'll post it to HN. Thanks for your interest. My abilities are not extraordinary and I believe anybody can accomplish greatness with enough passion, perseverance, and unglamorous work
So many others in your position could use the hope.
The US is too harsh on so many offenders - if you've 'done your time' - I can see not being able to buy a gun, but I don't think employers should be able to ask.
And we are certainly not a homogeneous society that many use as an argument that this would not work elsewhere.
In my city, Drammen, a bit outside of Oslo, about 1/3 of the population are not native Norwegians and there are over 100 nationalities here. My daughters school has over 30 nationalities. (And I don't think this is a bad thing)
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB037gVIpJc
[2]http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-...
And yes the climate is harsh. Especially the heat literally makes thinking hard. There was a study about government clerks in USA, their work effectiveness shot up by 20% once they got air conditioning.
In a way Africa is similar to Russian Federation. Both are vast, both have bad climate and both have lots of natural resources. Both are hamstrung by corruption.
Heat map at the top, but you can find the detailed stats too. https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percept...
From the article: '''The boom in air conditioning is good news for many reasons.
Studies show that it lowers mortality during heat waves. Heat makes prison inmates fractious - air conditioning pays for itself by reducing fights.
When the temperature exceeds 21C or 22C in exam halls, students start to score lower in maths tests.
In offices, air conditioning makes us more productive: according to one early study, it made US government typists do 24% more work.
Economists have since confirmed that relationship between productivity and keeping cool.'''
That idea that there isn't enough money for improving the justice system is self defeating in way too many ways.
Thanks for your self-awareness, you are mostly wrong. It's not entirely your fault though, since gp generalized by saying "here in Africa" as if 1 billion people in 54 countries are a single amorphous blob.
> Those resources are mined, extracted and sold but profits go to a small caste of wealthy warlords and/or corrupt leaders.
There are probably less than 20 "warlords" in only 2-3 countries out of a billion Africans, and they likely control a region less than 1% of the total landmass. You are right there are corrupt leaders, but most of the profits do not go to them (as they are small-fry); they go to Western (or Chinese) multinationals, and perhaps even to your retirement fund.
> And yes the climate is harsh. Especially the heat literally makes thinking hard.
You are overgeneralizing to the point of being wrong - you probably are thinking of the Sahara. I have no idea where this "Africa is hot" trope originates, but most of sub-saharan africa has moderate temperatures[1]. Some regions receive snow every winter[2]
> In a way Africa is similar to Russian Federation.
In a way, Africa is dissimilar to the Russian Federation. It's 54 countries, has 2000 languages and is far larger. Larger than China, India, US, and most of Europe - combined![3]
edit: more ranting
I am continually surprised by HNers commenting authoritatively on Africa without first interrogating the source of their knowledge. Imagine a guy in Italy declaring all that's wrong with Silicon Valley based on what they've heard in the news and seen in pity-party ads by SV NGOs. "It's the existential fear of earthquakes that makes them short-sighted. The gentrification is real bad too"
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa#/media/File...
2. https://www.ceres.org.za/see-do/winter-snow.html
3. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/africa-is-...
More than 25 percent of Africa is desert. Sahara is not the only desert in Africa.
Checked the forecasts of 10 largest cities in Africa, lowest avg. daily temperatures in Jan/July in Celsius.
Lagos: 30/26
Kinshasa: 27/29
Cairo: 18/34
Johannesburg: 24/14
Khartoum: 29/35
Dar es Salaam: 30/24
Alexandria: 16/26
Abidjan: 29/25
Algiers: 13/28
Kano: 21/26
The 4 sub-20 cities are either coastal cities or very close to the coast, those away from seas/oceans are what can be accurately described as "hot".
> most of sub-saharan africa has moderate temperatures
That climate map is deceptive. It may lead you to believe that "blue" areas are very cool, yet Kinshasa is in Congo, the country with the most blue/deep blue color on that climate map.
Kindu, a 172 000 town closest to the deep blue area on that map is 24/28, not the coolest place on Earth.
> More than 25 percent of Africa is desert. Sahara is not the only desert in Africa.
Deserts also get extremely cold.
This is where I grew up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novosibirsk#Climate
Them deserts got nothing on Siberia.
I'm all too familiar with +30 Summer, -30 Winter swings, and those are far from pleasant.
Why there's no vegetation ? Because there's hot during the day.
Also, the "method" I used is neither very sound nor in any way scientific. Just a very subjective level of comfort for me.
Allow me to add some clarity: I listed the lowest daytime temperature of ANY day of Jan/July, not avg temperature in a month.
According to that method Austin is 9/35.
Sub-25 Celsius is a temperature I find comfortable enough. And looking through the data Austin looks like it's good enough from late October through mid-April, so that's about 5.5 months of nice enough weather in my opinion. But a very hot summer is not something I like.
I'll be spending this winter in Vietnam, not so much for the comfort of it, but to travel and catch up with a few friends that relocated there.
The disclaimer wasn't meant to spread magic dust over my post, just to show I realize my knowledge has blank spots.
I'm not looking forward to 54 separate conversations, and that's the the other extreme you're suggesting ? I also read many of Ryszard Kapuściński's books, I know sometimes you can have more than 50 languages on a single street. I also know about de-colonization and how many countries are still abused by the old colonial powers, it's just the form of abuse that changed (like economical exploitation or dumping e-waste).
Okay, I over-emphasized warlords. My fault. I should have said instead that Africa has a potential to have a lot of money, but is highly dysfunctional.
From what I read in Kapuściński's books, the corrupt officials may be small fry but they make exploitation by foreign powers possible. They are often put into power by foreign powers too.
According to Basil Davidson ("Black Mother"), the consequences of slave trade are much more devastating and lasting to this day than is generally thought. For some 300 years societies and kingdoms were rotting from inside and men were turned against each other. Wars were started to get more slaves. He listed many examples (like in the delta of Congo) where Africans fought against Europeans to get them out and stop the slave trade, but it was bloody hard to do. If you refused to trade in slaves, European ships arrived at your neighbors, sold guns to them and your neighbors could raid you. To completely stop it, it would require African kingdoms along the west coast at least to ally and cooperate. That was a hard problem. So another thing they tried was only selling a slave for a musket. Later, armed to the teeth, they could repel Europeans.
Africans were smart enough to realize the importance of seafaring ships. They (for example mani-kongo, the ruler of Congo) tried to buy them and pay for the technology. They were repeatedly refused.
What I'm trying to say is that it's very unfair to repeat the old propaganda of slave traders and say Europeans brought order to Africa. Africans had order and powerful, civilized kingdoms. At first Europeans were just thrown out by strong armies and diseases. Fun fact: Africa had feudalism, just not on the scale dim Portuguese could comprehend. It had a feudalism of peoples. Tribe A is a vassal of tribe B, tribe C is a vassal of tribe B.
Europeans systematically destroyed Africa using corruption (slave trade). They mostly didn't come and kidnap slaves, they bought them until kingoms were thouroughly rotten and a foothold could be gained. This lasted for 300 years. Don't underestimate the power of 300 year old corruption on society.
Not least because reduced reincarceration rates translates to fewer people in prison where they cost the state a lot of money, when they could be out and participating in growing the economy.
> "If you treat people better you will have lower rates of reincarnation"
I think the Buddhists will be very disappointed to hear that...
I believe you meant "reincarceration" (We know you meant that!)
My auto correct feature has been a bit overzealous here and English is not my 1st language. Updated the post you referenced.
Actually, Buddhists would be very happy indeed, no reincarnation means nirvana has been reached :)
For instance, look at the gun ownership/gun crime rates.
I want to add another comment, which is slightly more difficult. You say that your daughters school "has over 30 nationalities, and that it's not a bad thing". I admire you for this. BUT I don't think it's representative of how Norwegian society is, judging from my 6 months working in Oslo.
Could you expand on this?
Norway ranks at 6th place in number of guns per 100 inhabitants and 39th in number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population per year. The US ranks 1st and 11th respectively, having 3.6 times the number of guns per 100 people and 6 times the number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people compared to Norway. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
My opinion is that those statistics are not very useful.
For Japan in 2014, 6 deaths in 2014 with 710K guns for a ratio of 0.0000085 deaths per gun.
Double-checking, the US has 5600 x more deaths with 380-435 x more guns for a ratio of 12-14 more deaths per gun.
Can you elaborate on which social differences you think might make it difficult or impossible to implement a Norwegian-style justice system in the USA?
It includes the social security net, health care system, education, low corruption etc.
The corruption part is actually quite important. Even if you do not call lobbyism corruption it has the same effect and people can see that decisions are not made "for the people", but for the money. This drastically lowers institutional trust and will affect all of society.
To respond (with a question) to your point, do you think that any of those areas can be successfully reformed individually, eventually making it possible for the USA to reform its prison system, or do you think they are all so interdependent that none can be changed without changing the other?
In regards to the society. There are always many different views and situations, however mine is not uncommon. I know there are some that do not look favorably on this but they are from my experiences in the minority. Most people I know are more in line with this man[1]. Personally I think that a diverse society is a strength rather than a weakness.
I am a native Norwegian so that might have something to do with my experience and I won't say you have not had another in Oslo.
[1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev...
Maybe this a good way in which we could be a little less different.
> There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.
It working in one country is evidence that it may be a good approach, worthy of experimentation/testing. Not reflexive dismissal.
Nope. There are plenty of reason to expect that, and it should be the default assumption. People don't become aliens just because they were born at the wrong side of an imaginary line.
If you would like to protest that assumption, it is up to you to provide data.
I don't know what counts as homogeneous and not, but if you walk around in Oslo you see a lot more colours than white :)
[1] https://www.oslo.kommune.no/politikk-og-administrasjon/stati...
Why does ethnic homogeny matter?
You can't seriously suggest millions of people think the same because of their genetic markup.
That's a cute idea, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes of reading the news, or a few hours of first hand observation, to find plenty of examples where people very much do not treat everyone outside their ≤ 200 person tribe “the same, regardless of ethnicity”.
> You can't seriously suggest millions of people think the same because of their genetic markup.
The grandparent post refers to culture and ethnicity (the latter being an identity of shared culture) not genetics. Culture is essentially shared ritual, values, and historical narrative, and, yes, shared culture is significantly about thinking the same way.
Um... Yeah, exactly. What's your point? It was a point of gossip to marry someone from the next village. So yeah, strangers were bad.
>>> The grandparent post refers to culture and ethnicity (the latter being an identity of shared culture) not genetics.
So... Like what is the relationship between a homogenous culture and crime rate again?!
You actually think people wouldn't kill themselves because they are from the same culture?
And I don't think it matters, what matters is that all members of the society feels included and a part of it regardless of their origins.
But the latter is probably easier to achieve in a homogeneous society and you don't have to deal with xenophobia.
Yes, Norway is fairly homogeneous. But most countries are fairly homogeneous, Norway doesn't really stand out.
I get that white in the US means a lot of different things, but it's not like Spain or Germany are a homogenous glob.
The idea that "non-Hispanic white american" is not a distinct ethnic identity (usually just "White American" or even "American", with Hispanics viewed as non-White , actual ancestry aside, outside of bureaucratic systems and foreign in ethnicity) despite recognition of distinct national origin, is somewhat dubious. Its true that some of those national origins historically were viewed more as distinct ethnicities and even treated as just as non-"White American" as Blacks (or, perhaps more germane to the point, White Hispanics) are now, but while the national identities persist, that treatment has largely changed. I mean, sure there is a time when by virtue of his mere name Bill O'Reilly would be a reviled enemy of the nativist defenders of White American identity, rather than in a position to be an icon of nativism. But that time is long past.
France and UK are as different as France-USA, UK-USA. Europe is extremely diverse across borders.
So, the 75% of America that is 'Ethnically European' is already very varied.
Also - a good chunk of the 'non-Norwegians' in Norway are Swedes and Danes, which are pretty close.
Maybe genetically (although even that is debatable). But after a few generations you kind of iron out the differences between, say, a German - American and a Polish - American.
The differences between Germans and Polish are much larger. They speak German and Polish for instance vs just English.
Also when you are saying colonies, is it the former colonies (North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Ex-Indochina) or the current overseas departments (in the Carribean, Guiana in South America and in the Indian Ocean)?
I'm an immigrant in Norway - I'm from the US. A lot of folks I talk to are Norwegian, spouse included. (I'm in Trondheim, so there is much more diversity here in the city). Like everywhere, there is some anti-immigrant sentiment if you look in the right places.
But mostly, I feel included - that goes along with the general values of the nation. Heck, the kind gives speeches of inclusion. The linked speech is a common example [1, english subtitles]. The local school has messages saying "people are different, and that's OK" and "just because people are different, we still include people" (not direct translations).
Having a homogenous society doesn't matter so much when the society tries to be inclusive as a whole. That doesn't happen so much in the US, even as a citizen.
Edit: The US isn't even the most ethnically diverse place, so I fail to take that as an excuse. Both the US and Mexico are more diverse. [2]. Also, forgot to link the speech above.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLxYde-rw [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16...
But there's a huge component missing to this - and that is the rights of the victims.
There are quite a number of people who have 'committed a crime' and really are at no risk of re-offending in the first place.
A Montreal doctor, in a fit of fury, murdered his wife and children. I believe - with some basic help and observation, it's entirely unlikely he'd do such a thing again. I don't think for a second that 'prison' or even the 'threat of prison' factors into his likelihood of recitivism.
So the 're-integration' thing to do for this doctor would just be a little time in a psych/hospital, then re-integration and observation/checking-in on him.
But what about the wife? The kids that were murdered? What about their rights as victims?
If you 'slander' someone - you might have to pay them $100K.
But if you 'murder' them - there's nobody to pay?
This is a real issue - and more real in Scandinavia.
I have a distant relative who is Danish - a rough and tumble guy who hangs out with bikers. Over at his place for dinner one day (in Denmark) - the guy sitting beside me (who seemed rather normal if a tiny bit thuggish) - was a murderer.
He spent four years in jail for murdering someone, and was now in a 'half way house' for a couple of years. That's it.
I don't doubt that maybe his situation is optimized for 'non recidivism' - but there are moral questions with this.
Four years in a really nice jail - with Internet, a 'instrument' room with instruments, a goddam mixing panel to make tracks (!), a gym, half decent food - etc. - is just wrong.
Imagine if your mother/family member was ruthlessly murdered by her landlord.
He does four years in an easy prison. No worries. His property, holdings intact. He comes back as if it didn't happen, with a little bit of 'checking in' form the government?
We cannot think of crime just as a matter of 'recidivism rates' - yes - those are important - but the moral implications are equally as important.
If one treatment method is "more unjust" towards the victim, but it leads to a lower recidivism rate, I think we should use that one. For example, in the case of murder, I think it's obvious that it's in society's best interest to optimize the justice system around reducing the murder rate as a whole, not how much "justice" the victim receives.
Now, if there's 2 methods that (somehow) lead to the same recidivism rate, then we can consider the one that is "more just" towards the victim, but even then, I'm not 100% sure.
Note: I put justice in quotes not because I'm trying to minimize it (it's definitely that has to be considered, or people will lose faith in the system), but because it's an ill-defined term right now.
I personally think that the 'Doctor who murdered his wife and children' - should spend 30 years in jail - even if it might technically increase his likelihood to 'do it again'.
It's also hard because the US system - as a basis of discussion - is kind of a mess. Crazy rates of incarceration, aggressive prosecutors, racism, private prisons, massive prison gangs, overcrowding - etc. etc. - it's such an anomaly.
It's easy to point out how the US system utterly 'non optimal' and in some cases actually 'unjust' because it probably is.
Which also makes it hard to compare to Scandinavia.
I think we can probably 'get justice' and 'recidivism down' with a little common sense. Starting with ridiculous drug sentences etc..
I want people who have committed atrocities to face justice, which is an issue of morality, not a 'feeling'.
There are absolutely some murders who don't need a day of prison, and possibly not a lot of mental health help and would not be a 'risk to society'.
For example, I think that letting those people into society who have committed crimes - merely because 'they are not a threat' - is 'disgusting'.
I'm Russian and there used to be a popular anecdote here that 1/3 of the country is in prison, 1/3 guards them and 1/3 are relatives, waiting for the release of the prisoners.
Russian prisons are no resorts, with few if any facilities found in Scandinavian prisons, with terrible food and anything but humane attitude from the administration.
Out of people who spend there 4+ years and then go out VERY few are back to being normal. Most are simply broken (and I do not use that term lightly) unless they were hardened criminals for whom prison is merely another step in their career and they knew what they were getting into.
I don't think severe prison conditions are good for the society as a whole.
But I still think that people should receive sentences that are commensurate with justice - not just recidivism.
Give people the sentences they deserve, and work on social integration towards the end of their term and after their release.
I know only about Russian prisons from a documentary I saw (so very little) - and they seem crazy hard-core - a little too rough - also dominated by gangs, which is bad. 'Gang culture' in prison is bad thing, so is violence - I think having people in those types of conditions is 'cruel and unusual' punishment.
I think the regular notion of prison is reasonable: i.e. not 'club med' but also not 'gang-land/rape-land'. And social programs are fine I think.
It's hard to have a meaningful discussion of these issues in the abstract, but the short answer is:
1) it depends
2) bias correction is not a trivial matter
Bias correction is useful and often legitimate, but its use should always be interpreted as weakening the epistemological rigor of the analysis. In lay terms: bias correction should be consumed with a grain of salt.
General entry point into the subject matter: https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/31253/17054
This post is inspired by Finnish education system. I read an article which mentioned a bad behaving class, which was merged with a good behaving one. Their behavior improved, because they were suddenly under good influence and bad behavior was no longer universally tolerated.
What I'm trying to say is perhaps law-breakers should be inserted into some MODEL society, some kind of modern utopia/forced labor camp where people are treated nice and work is hard but satisfying. And not a place where everything they get is for free.
Do you know any examples where something like this took place ?
Similarly, the article talks about how "education reduces recidivism by 50%". However, this is a self-selecting group of prisoners who decide to go to school/college, and so they are less likely to commit future crimes. I doubt those kind of numbers would hold if you forced all inmates to gain education. Since HS education is free, and most people now can get a loan for college and go somewhere (at least as good as prison college), almost all of these people who didn't get the education "on the outside" decided not to pursue it. So logically, those prisoners joining these classes voluntarily are mostly prisoners who realize they need to change and already see education as a "way out" -- so its not really a cause/effect but a correlation.
Edit: Clarity of last sentences
The article provides literally no context on which to base that judgment. The study could most certainly have been designed to (at least attempt to) disambiguate all of the issues you're talking about here. Everything you've mentioned is experimental design 101, these are routine things to take into account.
Of course, since the study (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/26/1701544114.abst...) is PNAS and not open-access, I also have no context to make any conclusions.
The leading picture is about California prisoners, the study is on Michigan ones (BTW between 2003 and 2006), and most considerations are about US in general.
Besides obvious differences in demographics and possibly "types of crimes", AFAIK in Michigan there is no "three strike Law":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law
(while there is, and it is seemingly enforced very aggressively, counting even what other states/coutries would define minor offences) in California.
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison [1]
The seminal book on questions like: Where do prisons come from? Why did anyone ever think that they were a good idea? Do they work?
Highly recommended
1. cut democratic voters by half. Blacks used to vote democratic. Once in a prison you cannot vote anymore. 50% of all young black men in the working age once were in prison. Mostly due to selective targeting and drugs policies.
2. prison for profit. It's modern slavery, free workforce. Together with the colluding justice system a perfect slavery system.
For instance an issue this study faced was that it's difficult to control for the fact that extenuating circumstances and other factors help determine the sentencing for individuals. A judge, presumably, will make some effort to attempt to sentence individuals who are less likely to reoffend to probation rather than prison, and vice versa. The study argued that the random assignment of judges to cases, each of whom has their own sentencing tendencies, works as a control here but I think that is less than compelling. A judge may be more or less lenient on average, but that does not change the fact that all judges are going to be aiming to achieve the same thing. You're not comparing apples to apples.
It seems the only solution would be genuine random sentencing in a controlled experiment, but there are obviously certain ethical issues there. It's unfortunate since our system is completely broken. You create environments where individuals are treated like dehumanized animals and pushed towards greater degrees of sociopathy with no meaningful effort made towards rehabilitation. And suddenly after being in this situation for years, they're supposed to come out better than ever ready to integrate and become a productive member of society? Obviously the idea is that fear of being put in that circumstance is supposed to be a deterrent. But given an overall recidivism rate now of 76.6% [1] over 5 years, it should be self evident that this idea is quite obviously not working.
Seemed super smart to me. Incentivise the right behavior.
This is all moot because it isn't prisons that decide who gets to go free but a parole board. That's part of a judicial process typically unaffiliated from the prison itself.
It's not up to a private prison WHEN they release someone. It's up to them how they are treated while they are IN the prison. If they are offered classes, job training, mental health care, support groups, etc. Or if they're brutalized in an uncaring institution, and released worse off than when they came in.
Sorry I didn't explain myself well.
Where humans work errors happen, there are no guarantees in life.
I don't think anybody is qualified to know what people 'deserve.'
The problem is that there’s not really any such thing as “the same offense.”
If you talk directly to people who work in law enforcement they indicate sentencing is much less about the precise crime and much more about whether all involved perceive the offender as a “bad guy.”
If the people involved (da, police, judge, jury) are in any way accurate in that assessment, it will stand to reason a person incarcerated will be more likely to reoffend. That’s what everyone was perceiving which is why they incarcerated the person in the first place.
The US is primarily a christian country supposedly founded on christian values etc.
I am an atheist, and a nihilist in that I do not think there is an inherent moral in the universe. However, that means that life is a chance happening. There is probably life elsewhere in the universe but it is rare as far as we know. This means each life is inherently special and we should strive to enable each and everyone to reach their maximum potential and explore this great opportunity we have. This means adopting a humanistic approach to life (and in my case, life as in all life not just humans).
Back to the US. I have read the bible and I have taken many lessons from it even though I am not religious. Jesus was one of the first real humanists and have many great things to say.
Do no kill.
Do to others as you want them to do to you.
Turn the other cheek.
Forgive..
This is the essence of christianity.
They make sense to me even if I am not religious. Many of his guidelines would improve everyones life. But in the US you are so hell bent on revenge that the words fall on death ears. I know I am generalising here and this is not the case for every American. But as you say, prisons were always about revenge.
Is there any explanation for this paradox?
But at least he didn't have to suffer through subpar American prison conditions!
If you're convinced that your civilization is literally about to end, locking up these evil criminals actually becomes an act of kindness and mercy.
I agree with this, however he also say that you should do to others as you would them do to you.
In other words, embrace empathy. What would you want to happen to yourself in a situation where you murdered someone in a psychosis. Would you want a chance to get back to a normalish life or sit in a cell alone steadily having your mentality degrade?
I also do not know how I would act myself if one of my daughters were murdered, I hope I am prepared to forgive.
However even in christianity it is god who will exact this punishment, not the people. He sais men is not to judge each other. I can't get this to fit with the revenge mentality either.
For the record, the hell part is, in my opinion, one of the most glaring inconsistencies in the religion. God loves all.. but you will still burn in hell for eternity if you do not accept him/her/it blindly. I find that very sadistic and cruel.
Historical Jesus barely talks about Hell at all in the bible, and when he does it's somewhat ambiguous whether or not he's talking about an actual literal trash dump not too far outside of Jerusalem's city limit (translation notes on this are fascinating).
Most of the modern concept of Hell really comes from Revelation and from works of art/books written during long after the events of the Bible were supposed to take place.
The Orthodox and the Catholics have the notion of Purgatory, where a soul goes through a transition of detachement of what prevents him/her to actually enjoy the close presence of God (ie. heaven). They also hold that people are not qualified to make a statement whether a person will go to hell (or heaven for that matter); hell defined as being away from God forever: those who repeadedly persist in not wanting to love God will not be forced to be with him.
What is perverse is the attempt at bringing this judgement of the will on earth. If someone is in prison, is deepely remorseful and asking for help to ammend their ways, it should be our duty as a society to assist that person. Attempting to "play God" is in opposition with Christian dogma.
What kind of orthodoxy are you talking about in this context?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Eschat...
This one explicitly rejects Purgatory.
> Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware acknowledges several schools of thought among the Orthodox on the topic of purification after death. This divergence indicates that certain Catholic interpretations of purgatory, specifically the satisfaction model, more than the concept itself, are what is universally rejected. Also, there are Orthodox sources that indicate some sins can be forgiven after death; but which also reject the teaching of purgatory because of the doctrine of indulgences and idea of literal purgatorial fire that are tied to it. Still other Orthodox hold to the notion of the Toll Houses and that those who pass through them after death have no assurance of final salvation.
> Rather than say that the doctrine of Purgatory is a heresy, it is more accurate to say that it is an ancient ecumenical tradition which, due to the mysterious nature of the subject matter, Christians throughout history have interpreted and explained in a very wide variety of ways, some of which were strongly rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Nitpick: the predominant Christianity flavor in the US is a branch that split off after ~ 15 centuries, officially for purist reasons but practically for "pick-and-choose" reasons. Naturally, that's instable and that branch furter split into more and more isolated denominations, carfully picking what they choose to believe in and rejecting the rest (or rejecting factual history, thus doomed to repeat it).
In particular, many in that group (but not all: it's impossible to generalize here) have forgotten how "life is inherently special" and became more preoccupied with justifying how their particular branch/flavor of belief is the best, applying personal judgement despite the warnings of the One they claim to follow.
Of course, being Catholic, I'm biased in this matter and am certainly no saint. But there's a fundamental difference between adhering imperfectly to a set of beliefs which are hard but coherent, and adhering to a subset carved out in order to feel good about being able to follow everything and judge all those who don't.
And worse: there are many Catholics who use particular points of doctrine to cast judgement on others and white-wash their personal bias, and missing out on the bigger picture. This is something we're continually having to address because we are all imperfect and living within the influence of our culture. But this is where time and plurality of culture comes in, because over the centuries, knowledge has been accumulated regarding cultural notions that turn out to be very bad ideas, and distilled into a (relatively) compact compendium.
Not only a property of the human mind: if there are no negative consequences then they have no rational reason to change their behavior.