Hacker News Reader

Comment by simmanian | Hacker News Reader

I believe we should focus on separating criminals from non-criminals instead of punishing and torturing them. Give them an environment where they can thrive without being harmful to themselves and others. Let them re-join the society ONLY when they pose acceptable risk. This means violent criminals may never get to re-join the society, but that's okay given that they are still given a humane environment where they can stay healthy and thrive.

View on HN

I'm classified as a "violent criminal" by the state by way of having a violent felony. Not trying to be inflammatory, but this sounds like awful idea, mostly psychological and societal at large. In my experience, many, many people have this "us vs. them" attitude towards criminals, as in "I would never commit a crime so therefore they are not like us." The reality is, countless people are either innocent or one-time offenders (or others who likely do not "deserve" exile). Further division along further boundaries is probably not what we need, especially one which is nearly certain to be universally looked down upon.

So, IMO, resources would be much better spent improving what we have (a lot), making sure justice & sentencing is fair and consistent, and certainly doing a much better job of post-incarceration support, community, and monitoring. I would wager that many, many more people can be helped out of their circumstances than are currently, but prisoners are almost dropped entirely once they're released.

Thanks for sharing. Especially the “us vs. them”-view.

I recently realised this while watching Gordon Ramsay’s Bad Boy Bakery. The sentiment (I assume often portrayed intentionally by the show) about prisoners really both shocked and confused me. It’s as if people want prisoners to do absolutely nothing, somehow still act according to their rules and then somehow flourish in society after release.

imo, prison systems should be more focused on learning crafts and education in general. I feel like the vast majority are in for minor crimes and somehow their life should be ruined for it. Doesn’t seem just.

There’s definitely some people who pose a permanent danger to society, and some prison sentences will seem just. But there’s no reason they should be bored out of their minds

That's an interesting reference, thanks. I kinda skimmed through a couple episodes on YouTube actually. I don't think I watched enough to pick up on nuanced portrayal of prisoners but I do understand what you're saying nonetheless. I was lucky enough to go in and come out with a job but it appears any reason or amount of time is heavily stigmatized in so many other ways (total ban on immigration to many countries, automatic bans or denials for things that utilize background checks, negative judgment from friends and family, general assumption of guilt in many scenarios, etc).

I very much agree re: focus on education. I spent some time in a new facility and they had good classrooms and programs for it and I saw a lot of interest in them. That said, I think boredom is often seen by many as a desirable part of the punishment.

Thank you for sharing. I personally view "violent criminals" as regular human beings and believe we should stop classifying people as violent criminals the moment they no longer pose significant danger to others. But maybe you're right in seeing that most don't share these views. Regardless, what I'm trying to say is ALL people deserve to organize themselves in ways that lead to safe, healthy, and happy lives. We should not torture people for decades for murdering others. Rather, let them live in a way that allows them to thrive while protecting the rest from getting harmed.

I get where you're coming from but realize that you're advocating for indefinite sentences, which are inhumane, combined with a board of fallible, perversely incentivized people who will determine who is rehabilitated and who isn't. The board will presumably be subject to the will of a sadistic, vengeful public who have cartoonish beliefs about a system they have no direct knowledge of, and who completely fail to understand even the most basic rights afforded under the constitution. (Go look at just about any tweet about the fifth amendment.)

It sounds great on paper but the second real people get involved, it becomes a humans rights disaster.

I agree that it would be difficult to implement these practices at once. But the core idea, that all people have the right to organize in a way that leads to sustainable happiness, can be implemented in small chunks in many different, less controversial aspects of our lives. I imagine if the idea gets enough traction, we can then take a good look at how we treat those who refuse to harmonize with the general population.

Penal colonies and other forms of exile are cruel and unusual. It's hard to conceive because this form of punishment has been disused in the west for nearly as long as drawing and quartering, but historical use of exile gives a sense for how extreme permanent exile is as a punishment.

Even in the age of drawing and quartering, penal colonies were used primarily as an alternative to capital punishment. In the age of gruesome physical torture, exile was used primarily an alternative to execution.

I think the key difference is I'm focusing on allowing people to live with others they can synergize well with. I oppose the focus on punishing (torturing) criminals. I do not believe we should permanently exile all violent criminals into wilderness. I believe they should live in a safe and healthy environment where they can thrive. We shouldn't let someone who's likely to murder people out on the streets with no help to get them reintegrated just because they did their time. At the same time, there's no reason we should keep someone locked up when they have truly changed. Give criminals a healthy environment where they can thrive and even be happy. Give criminals a chance to join back when they really want to.

Maintaining a sufficient level of physical security to reliably confine violent criminals while also giving them a safe and healthy environment where they can thrive would be extremely expensive. It sounds great in theory, but most citizens wouldn't be willing to pay more taxes for it. (And yes I'm aware we could find the necessary funds by slashing military spending but realistically that's not going to happen.)

That depends on how you define "violent criminal".

I've been convicted of an assault charge before, do I qualify?

Well that would depend on the specific facts of your case, which is why we give judges some flexibility in sentencing. There's a huge difference between punching someone in a bar brawl versus pistol whipping a store clerk during an armed robbery.

Both have the potential to kill.

I think the point they're making is obvious. Being a pedant doesn't further discussion.

You make various odd connections there that are just not true. Violent criminals do not thrive together with other violent criminals. By definition those are people who have trouble fitting in a society. There's a high chance of various bad things happening and so you need rules and guards and so on. It would never be a free society when talking about bad criminals and not small offenders.

That's all reasonable, but a bit utopian.

There are tons of serious pragmatic issues with your suggestions, as well as serious political questions about how to convince people to implement them.

I don't see a meaningful difference between exile and inprisonment then. In either way, you remove the people from their communities for an extended period of time. I don't think it's consequential to make a difference between them being stuck outside or inside the geographical area.

Being able to walk outside, feel the sun, the air or the rain on your face, touching grass, trees or rocks - that would be a huge difference for me.

Exile might sometimes give people an opportunity to create a new life for themselves, even if it wouldn't have been their own choice. Especially if exile is to a semi-free society, as opposed to exile to a prison colony or an internal gulag. Some people may even thrive as a result. There is no comparison with an lengthy period of imprisonment, with no freedoms at all

Isn't that basically how Australia was populated?

Australia was populated long before that. 100k or so convicts shipped over a century probably means fewer than 50k shipped-convict population at once, compared to an 800k aboriginal population (plus or minus a lot).

Basically, you suggest even longer sentences in country that already leads incarceration rates worldwide.

I agree with you, I just think it would take a lot more money and effort to provide this environment.

Ending the war on drugs would open up some room

Sounds like a pretty good compromise for public safety

so... what do we do with non-criminals? All the small things like bike theft, not paying child support, fare evasion and urinating in the streets?

For extra credit: assume the offender has no money.

non-criminals? Do you mean non-violent criminals? Theft is a crime, perpetrating said crime makes you a criminal.

That. Or we can put the line between misdemeanor and a felony.

Whoa. Are you defending putting these people in jail with murderers and gang members?

Many countries have prison levels.

Non-violent offenders will be housed in a different prison than violent offenders, and the worst of the worst (usually lifers) will be put into one or two very secure prisons.

This castle is the max security prison in Czechia. Used as a prison since 1760 (back then for offending clergy). You won't get there for child support debt.

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C4%9Bznice_M%C3%ADrov

(Though as a former kid whose father was deliberately neglecting child support payments - it can work pretty long if he lives in another country that has a corrupt judicial system - I believe withholding child support should be punished by more than just a slap on the wrist. Lack of support makes life really hard for the kids.)

I do not. But what are the alternatives? Spanking?

> Spanking?

Some countries essentially do this (e.g. caning in Singapore).

Don't you, at least in Singapore, get caning in addition to a prison sentence?

I thought that there were at least some circumstances where caning would happen in lieu of a prison sentence but it looks like I'm wrong.

TIL: In Singapore parents can declare their children "beyond parental control". From that point the government will take care of their behavior.

[1] https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/what-is-a-beyo...

Has there ever been any studies on caning + prison and whether it has any efficacy in reducing recidivism in Singapore vs. just prison?

That is the Judge Dredd world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com