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?
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).