Hacker News Reader

> If the prisons were focused on fixing the root problem in the criminals, as if they were some sort of refuge for edification, conditioning and correction then a large body of the homeless would commit a strategic crime in order to get there so they can at least get three meals and an opportunity to move up in the world from rock-bottom.

1. Prisons as correctional center far outweighs some homeless guy pick-pocketing so that he doesn't have to die tired, hungry, cold, alone on pavement.

2. A homeless guy not dying on the pavement is a benefit in itself.

> prisons are a necessary evil to punish people who do not deserve rehabilitation, correction or edification.

People go to prison for a variety of reasons. Not paying your parking ticket or possessing 5gm of Marijuana do not qualify as "do not deserve rehabilitation".

> Like slavery in the 18th century, prisons are a necessary evil

Slavery was a necessary evil?

> It's my belief that jails are full of criminals because we don't understand the mental illnesses that brought them there.

1. You can believe whatever you want.

2. Stretch the definition of law and everybody is a criminal.

3. The spectrum of things you can go to jail for is so wide the belief that all criminal brains are wired the same way has a low probability.

4. The belief that "criminals" deserve what they get is how all sorts of draconian laws come into being. When the govt. says it tortured a few alleged terrorists, and you stand on the sidelines and cheer, you don't realize you are being instrumental in your own destruction. Tomorrow it can be you getting water-boarded, and the rest of us "good citizens" will stand on the sidelines and cheer.

> The belief that "criminals" deserve what they get is how all sorts of draconian laws come into being. When the govt. says it tortured a few alleged terrorists, and you stand on the sidelines and cheer, you don't realize you are being instrumental in your own destruction. Tomorrow it can be you getting water-boarded, and the rest of us "good citizens" will stand on the sidelines and cheer.

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller

>fixing the root problem in the criminals

The root problem is the xenophobia of old white men.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html

Here's the problem with your conclusion. 2010 median income:

White: $54,620 Hispanic: $37,759 Black: $32,068

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html

You have to account for poverty before you jump to racism.

What about when the socioeconomic game is rigged against you and has been for most of the last 400 years of American history?

I mean, yeah, poverty is without question a factor--but stopping there feels disingenuous to me. Why are they poor? is then a relevant question, and I think that "because of the racism of old white men" is not the worst explanation I've heard.

OK, but then that's a different issue. It isn't racism in the criminal justice system, and it isn't the criminal justice system's failure. It's the failure of the rest of society.

And even if it is racism originally, it's plausible that it's "because of the racism of dead white men." Two centuries ago they kidnapped millions of Africans and brought them here as slaves. Then they were freed without anyone offering to return them to their original communities in Africa or providing them any resources here to raise successful children. The legacy of that is not going away any time soon even if racism today were totally eradicated, because even in a society with greater upward mobility than we have now, poor parents will always be more likely to have poor children than rich parents.

Racism of old white men isn't my conclusion. It's been well studied, e.g.: http://www.naacpldf.org/files/case_issue/Duane%20Buck-FINAL%... http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/arwhite/files/fallernathanw... http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1800840

Also, your example of median incomes by race is a grand example of exactly what I'm talking about; thanks for that.

your reply gives me faith in humanity.

Let me take a different tack on this response.

If what you say is true, then why is this not an explicit part of our criminal justice system? Why are there no laws and regulations which spell out the brutalities that prisoners should be exposed to? Why is the process not formalized, institutionalized, documented, and routine?

Why has there been no public campaign to repeal or modify the 8th amendment to the US constitution (banning cruel and unusual punishments)? Or to set new legal precedent in the UK to invalidate the equivalent protections in the English/British constitutions? If it is such a foundationally important part of a well-functioning society then why is it not being talked about and debated above board?

The law of the U.S. and other countries is full of such two-tiered systems, i.e. what is written and what is well-known, e.g. "Don't ask, don't tell". All human society works that way; we learn it at home and at school.

Yeah.

There's a guy currently in solitary confinement serving time for felony hacking. The hack? Executing GETs against a public API. He got a 41-month sentence for that.

By any definition that's just crazy.

I am hoping this is satire and you aren't seriously arguing that "prisons have to be barbaric otherwise the homeless and the destitute would use them to avoid starvation".

The clue is "Like slavery in the 18th century, prisons are a necessary evil..." It is a very good piece of satire.

> people who do not deserve rehabilitation, correction or edification

Wow. I know it's a matter of philosophical debate whether such people actually exist[0]. But it's a matter of wilful ignorance to pretend that anything but a tiny minority of the US prison population falls under that category.

I think they don't. There's people that would be a really bad idea to ever let back in to society (say, a Breivik) but for a lot better reasons than "does not deserve rehabilitation/edification". Then there's people for whom rehabilitation is pointless because they're so mentally deranged they're not going to get better. Obviously such cases are the minority and very rare.

Also, did you consider to think: If your homeless prefer prison, that might not be because your prisons are too pleasant, but rather how you treat your homeless? Why are they left without "an opportunity to move up in the world from rock-bottom"? It's a ridiculous argument, "we can't treat group X humanely because then group Y who we also don't give a chance will want it too"--what?!

It's those lowest rungs that a society is judged by, you know. Whether the average American has a better life means absolutely zilch as long as you leave your schizophrenics begging and mumbling in the streets, and keep people in solitary the way this article describes.

>Conditions have to be bad enough so that a large segment of the rock-bottom citizens don't commit crime just to get some hope.

The blatantly obvious alternative to this is for the government to provide adequate food assistance and homeless shelters such that you can get the free meals and roof without committing a crime first, in which case there would be no incentive to do this whatsoever.

>> "Like slavery in the 18th century"

This person is clearly a troll. Ignore. [Edit: or is this a joke that I didn't get ?]

Minority report?

Nice, I was moved enough to reply, so as a satire it's a good piece.