Hacker News Reader

Comment by zibzab | Hacker News Reader

I personally think it involves a lot the nordic mentality of thinking carefully before acting, which in the long run leads to a society with much fewer problems.

See for example the prison system: do want people to suffer or do we want them to return as reasonably normal members of the society?

Also, let me add that I find the article slightly offensive.

View on HN

Agreed, but note however that, for many people, no amount of careful thinking will bring them to the latter decision in your example. They want the imprisoned to suffer - to them, that's the whole point ("deterrent", they'll say).

I think the "suffer"/"rehabilitation" is only one of the important aspects.

There is a selfish component as well, do I want to have low crime. A successful return to society facilitates that (life sentences for all is the only other alternative). The difference between doing what is right (whatever that means), or what is effective (which is much easier to measure).

Though the blatant disregard for human life in general in the US is quite astonishing for a "western" country.

The rights vs outcomes chasm weirds out many visitors to the US. For example, in California every hotel and apartment pool has to be outfitted at considerable expense so any rich but disabled inhabitants could theoretically enjoy their right a dip in the pool while in their wheelchair, although I've never seen these conveyances actually used. Meanwhile, there are mentally ill homeless people outside the hotel, enjoying the freedom of begging for money, camping on the sidewalk and using BART escalators as toilets.

I think it depends. If you murder someone, you shouldn't be allowed to live. Likewise with heinous crimes like Anders Brevik. Why he wasn't put to death is still mind boggling to me. For people who do serious crimes but maybe aren't as severe, that would warrant prison. I just think the US's system of perpetual imprisonment leads to a worse system overall. I personally have a threshold that if I were to be jailed for longer than a specified amount I'd just kill myself. There's no sense in it. People who want justice also want you to get Shawshank Redemptioned but without the happy ending which is even sadder than when the criminal gets caught. It's why I think the death penalty is vital in human society. Torturing people with futile boredom or potential assault for the rest of their life is how you destroy someone's psyche to the point of complete psychopathy.

> If you murder someone, you shouldn't be allowed to live.

So if the government murder someone, it should not be allowed to exist?

> Likewise with heinous crimes like Anders Brevik. Why he wasn't put to death is still mind boggling to me.

Why?

> I just think the US's system of perpetual imprisonment leads to a worse system overall.

You contradict yourself; you want harser sentences, but also thinks that harser sentences "leads to a worse system overall."

Death is not harsher than "25 to life." Being a rat in a cage told to exist but your purpose is futile is no life worth living.

I also do firmly believe that even if the wrong person is chosen for the death penalty, it's still significantly more humane than throwing an innocent person in jail for decades stealing their life away in an even worse way.

Lastly, if you don't think Anders Brevik shouldn't be put to death, I'd argue morally you're the one purporting immorality.

I am honestly curious. What in the article do you find offensive?

The stereotypes all over the article

> nordic mentality of thinking carefully before acting

To me, your comment also sounds like a stereotype.

If you're comparing countries in this way, generalizations are basically mandatory. That said, nothing in there felt particularly mean to me.

> See for example the prison system: do want people to suffer or do we want them to return as reasonably normal members of the society?

Unfortunately, this idea has not worked out. If you look at people who have been convicted a few times, reoffending rates approach 100% for Sweden.

Then there's all the suffering for the victims who get no help what so ever from the police who pretty much just let everyone go.

For instance, breaking a restraining order might at most get that person a fine. Although in reality the risk of actually getting that fine is small because prosecutors don't generally bother prosecuting someone to just get them a fine. Basically, if someone wants to kill you, the police won't help you.

For what its worth, the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and still has massive recidivism: "An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years."

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/measuring-recidivism

Where are you getting the data that recidivism rates are close to 100%?

Mostly Brottsforebyggande Rådet. You have to dig into their statistics though because they tend to like publishing what looks good.

Edit: Also personal experience, unfortunately.

Edit 2:

> Where are you getting the data that recidivism rates are close to 100%?

Recidivism rates for people with a few convictions.

So you’re saying people who have committed a crime more than once tend to commit crimes more than once? This doesn’t sound particularly surprising.

I'm saying that once someone has a couple of convictions, the change that they will commit crime again is about 100%, which sadly goes against the nice idea that people in our prisons "return as reasonably normal members of the society".

Begging the question. People with "a few convictions" are certainly going to have a high rate of recidivism, by definition.

Not at all. We might for example see recidivism drop off after a few convictions. That would be the case if prison could reeducate people.

I'd expect recidivism to be low after a single conviction if the system works. But you can't teach an unwilling student, so frequent fliers will keep coming back.

Exactly, it’s important to remember the overall recidivism rate is much lower than the US’s. Unfortunately I think some amount of crime is inevitable and is ultimately reflective of societal development or lack thereof. When you get to multiple convictions, the cost of letting someone go has to be balanced against the cost of incarcerating them permanently, and the relative harm they would cause over the rest of their life if they simply could not be socialized properly. Maybe we really should be locking them away forever. Maybe we shouldn’t. I don’t think we’re ready to have those discussions yet. Emotion and retribution still drive how we punish people, to a destructive extent. It’s clear we could still go much farther in liberalizing and reforming the penal system before these questions become the most important questions to answer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com