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?)
Indeed. Here's a case I happened across recently that go almost no media attention[1]. Got almost no media attention. Guy that stalked and assaulted a woman was released early on parole. Proceeds to stalk woman again, is arrested, prosecutors don't press charges. Assaults the woman again, is arrested again, prosecutors don't press charges. Eventually, the man kills the woman.
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.
> There are dangerous individuals that need to be removed from society, and when they're not, they hurt and kill those around them.
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.
For privileged people theft is mainly an inconvenience. When my laptop got stolen I just filled out a form at work and got a replacement the next day. But for lots of people it’s more than that. If you work on cars or houses your tools are your livelihood. Getting them stolen means losing your job or replacing them at retail prices which is out of reach for lots of people. Likewise at the community college I go to some people are barely holding on. If their laptop gets stolen they either drop out or don’t pay rent that month. There are lots of people who would rather be violently assaulted than have their stuff stolen so the idea that theft is nonviolent has always seemed like a luxury belief to me.
Theft isn't a mere nuisance, it's an attack on one of the fundamental buttresses against chaos and violence.
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.
In general, the welfare of law-abiding citizens should be prioritized over that of criminals. But for certain crimes, I do thing short but harsh corporal punishment would be fairer and more effective than prison.
> Guy that stalked and assaulted a woman was released early on parole. Proceeds to stalk woman again, is arrested, prosecutors don't press charges. Assaults the woman again, is arrested again, prosecutors don't press charges. Eventually, the man kills the woman.
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.
> 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.
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:
If recidivism rates are high, that means the the rehabilitation function of our criminal justice system (and the broader society) is substantially ineffective. Does that indicate something inherent about the people being imprisoned, or does it instead indicate that our systems are poorly designed and failing?
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 are asking the right question when asking if there is something inherent with the people, or if the systems are failing. But being binary about it strikes me as a tribal. The realistic answer to your question is that a little of both are true. There is no black and white answer here.
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.
> 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
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.
Unless there is way to test the likeabity for it to do it again I think imprisonment for most of its life is not that harsh if it's a second time recidivist. It's pretty obvious that person is not fit to live in a free society.
I don't think that will happen. However if that's the case then we need close monitoring/full surveilance of first time offenders. Perhaps also additional requirements (i.e 1000 miles restraining order). Breaking the restraining order should put the offender automatically back in jail. I'm pretty sure we have tools to deal with stalkers. It's just that there seems to be no will to re-educate them.
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?
The false positive vs false negative discussion in criminal justice is the whole problem. You cannot come up with a number that is satisfactory to everyone, and for every person you lock away forever because they will surely reoffend, how many should legitimately be over-punished for their actions?
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.
Weird to cite an article citing the brutal non-rehabilitative nature of the US penal system as the major cause of recidivism in order to make that case.
I wouldn't overlook the money angle either. Privatization, either outright, or in part via service fees for phones, books, commissary, etc, has changed the system.
Slave labor continued - the 14th amendment clearly spells it out : "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States[...]"
"Companies own or manage 75% of U.S. detention facilities. Two of the biggest companies, CoreCivic and The GEO Group, are publicly traded. In the correctional system, however, less than 10% of state and federal inmates are in the care of private prisons."
Don’t forget (4) profit where forced labor is the norm as its refusal is tied to longer sentences. Also the cost per prisoner per day for us taxpayers is nothing short of obscene.
Is this true? As far as I know the penal system has one and only one purpose: deterrence. 1) and 2) are a practically-oriented bonus. 3) is, to my knowledge, explicitly not a goal.
Officially, it's all of them. From title 18 section 3553 of the US code:
> 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;
This is surprising to me. In Germany, the constitution (as the highest law) is clear on the issue: punishment is not a goal, only deterrence of also the violator but especially others. I guess it is because the constitution here is quite new, compared to US. Funny tho, as I believe the US played an important role in drafting it.
If it's main purpose was deterrence, then why put in prison people who killed soneon by accident? Not murder but manslaughter. And person is really sorry for that act and would do anything to be sure it to not happen again.
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.
Deterrence doesn't only mean to discourage the perpetrator from recommitting the act, it means to deter the public at large getting doing so, for fear of punishment. So in the event of an accident caused by willful negligence, tyou would want to discourage others from being similarly negligent. For example, someone texting while driving who runs an intersection and causes a fatality. One reason to punish them is to impress upon others in your community to show care and awareness while driving.
I'm not endorsing this practice, just stating how I think deterrence is alleged to work.
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?
I think you made several unfounded assumptions. I agree that it's the innocent opinion - but this is a question about the basic, foundational rights, not the practical implementation (which is far from perfect).
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.
Deterrence is a very legit reason. At least make the rational actor part evaluate if the crime is worth the risk and time spend in jail.
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.
Doesn't that become a transactional approach. "If I rob this bank I have a 50% chance of getting away with $1m and 50% chance of going to jail for 5 years, that means the value is $200k/year"
I'd like a US criminal justice system that got this part - my hand hurts when I touch a hot stove - right. Instead what happens is that you touch the hot stove 20 times to no effect and on time 21 your hand is burned to a crisp.
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?
You could do this more efficiently by putting the nonviolent ones in a separate facility that is far less secure, more like army barracks. The incentive would be if they become violent, or escape, they go to the violent prison.
This is exactly the system in the UK, low security prisons for fraudsters and the like.
Usually convicts do a stint in a high security prison at the start, to see if they are going to be a good boy, and to give them a taste of what it's like if they aren't.
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?)