> achieves virtually nothing.
The purpose of prisons is to remove people from society altogether, yes. They do accomplish this. Your complaint on that point is that they don't do this efficiently (compared to what, killing the prisoners instead?)
The purpose of prisons is to remove people from society altogether, yes. They do accomplish this. Your complaint on that point is that they don't do this efficiently (compared to what, killing the prisoners instead?)
There are dangerous individuals that need to be removed from society, and when they're not, they hurt and kill those around them. If there is a more efficient and effective way to do this, that would be great. But it's hard to have this discussion when people pretend these things aren't important functions that need to be addressed in some way.
[1] https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/stalking-murder-...
And what do we do to try to change those people so that they don’t do it again when they are released?
I personally think we should provide more productive activities for prisoners, so that it is not necessarily the end of their lives or contributions to society. But that is so ripe for abuse that it's useless to even start the discussion.
[1] https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/
A more insidious problem is that there are some guys who aren't as dangerous as killers/rapists, but who are nuisance to others (e.g. multi-recidivist non violent theft). Putting them away for years doesn't seem like a fair solution.
The idea that their entire livelihood could be taken from them doesn't cross their mind
The cost of living in a low-trust environment is orders of magnitude greater than the value of the items stolen. Severe penalties for persistent defection against society are absolutely warranted.
Absolutely!
A) Imprison every stalker for life or kill them
B) Focus on rehabilitation and prevention. E.g. relocate the stalker to another city, monitor their movements etc.
A) That's disproportionate.
B) This requires an extensive police state.
Much more simply: evaluate each crime based on the severity, likelihood of re-offense, and apply a sentence commensurate with the crime. We could make lots of efforts to make this a fair and impartial process. I wonder what we could name that?
If anything it's the contrary.
I don't understand what this is supposed to be a case of. Are you suggesting that if he weren't let out on parole and had served his full sentence that he wouldn't have murdered the woman, or that all people who commit crimes should be given a choice between a life sentence or execution to prevent recidivism?
And do we make this decision without reference to the statistics, e.g. how many people were released from prison for assaulting a woman failed to go on to murder that same woman? I suspect the proportion would be very high. So is it worth it to imprison or execute any number of offenders who would not go on to commit even worse crimes if it saves just one woman from being killed? Have we looked up the number of released felons who have saved lives, have raised well-adjusted, productive children, have contributed to the world? Are we sure that this number is vastly lower than the number that have gone on to murder women? Could we even boost this number by giving prisoners education and safety, and making sure they can find employment after release, or is that a more onerous prospect than paying $50K/year to keep them caged eternally?
In fact, seeing as most women and children are murdered by their (male) loved ones, have we compared the likelihood of a man without a record to murder their partner to men who have a record of abuse? It may not be low enough to justify not imprisoning all men indefinitely, especially if citing a single murdered woman constitutes an argument.
> If there is a more efficient and effective way to do this, that would be great.
It's not effective at all, we have the worst violent crime rates in the developed world.
No need to suspect, or try to apply universal statistical arguments that _might_ be the case. This has been well studied, and recidivism rates for violent criminals are _extremely_ high, and incarceration is an effective strategy for preventing crime.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the penal system, but your speculation about its total inefficacy is incorrect. If you are interested in learning more, I found the book "Criminal Injustice" enlightening:
https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Justice-Decarceration-Depoli...
For less of a commitment, the author has done many interviews. Just search podcasts for his name.
There are many societies around the world with much lower incarceration rates, much milder penalties, less recidivism, and much lower overall amounts of crime. Shouldn’t we be investigating what they are doing right and trying to copy it, instead of doubling down on our current methods which seem to be extremely (monetarily and socially) expensive failures?
Or do you think Americans are just on average inherently defective compared to people who live in other developed countries?
I think you may have been being sarcastic with your last comment on Americans being defective, but it may not actually be that far from the truth, and I'm American. I'm sure we could copy some strategies and be so much better at everything like the extremely developed Europeans across the pond, but the American society and certain features that are rotting from within has a lot to do with it.
Band-aids are nice though and I see no harm in using them.
Yes, if the serial woman abuser was in prison where he belonged, he would not have been able to commit murder. Putting violent criminals in jail saves lives.
1) Segregation. Taking dangerous individuals and putting them in a separate area away from society.
2) Rehabilitation. Changing the behavior of these individuals to avoid recidivism.
3) Retribution. Just making these people miserable because it people outside prison feel good knowing the people in prison are having a bad time.
The US penal system is designed principally around (1) and (3) and pays lip service to (2).
source? Specifically, the claim that it's "mostly" money.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/why-private-prisons-geo-grou...
Well, it seems I need to brush up on some reading then.
The 13th*
Now part of this group should be able to reintegrate. If they are given a reasonable chance, but it feels that entire other part of system is build on this never happening.
Worse still it's burned to a crisp the day after you touch the stove. Is my hand a blackened stump because of the stove? Maybe? Who can say for sure.
My ideal would be that when you commit a crime the justice system finds you guilty or innocent extremely quickly and if prison time is the punishment you get in prison quickly, get out quickly and once done with that the slate is clean. I honestly think that would be more of a deterrent then the status quo.
I don't agree with this part. If someone was convicted of embezzlement on three separate occasions, and served a year in jail each time, would that be someone you'd be willing to hire as your accountant?
> The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider ...
> (2) the need for the sentence imposed—
> (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
> (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
> (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
> (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
"recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation."
In contrast, serving sentence in prison may change their personality.
So as I see it: it's revenge + lesson to people outside, to not commit crime.
I'm not endorsing this practice, just stating how I think deterrence is alleged to work.
I think that is the innocent opinion.
If it were for deterrence, then it would need to effectively deter better than it does. It does deter some people, but perhaps not others (especially in the US with its extremely high incarceration rate). And do life sentences effectively deter? It is possible to measure deterrence scientifically, because there is variation.
Also for it to properly deter, many of us would need to experience it first. From the outside we “know” it is horrible, but experiencing it is the only way to bellyfeel just how horrible. And what about the people who like the scene, the routine, and zero responsibilities?
How many people must be deterred it a balancing act. If jaywalking is punished by death, it will deter most people, but it is not adequate to the crime. And even death is not enough to deter absolutely everyone. One has to find the right balance.
Experiencing it first hand is not needed at all in my opinion. Per the above, it just has to work "well enough", and it usually does, even in the US.
"recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation."
Do you reject the entire concept of punishment?
https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justice-studies/blog/diffe...