|
So this is a topic that has been bothering me recently, and I thought I'd make a thread about it because there seems to be some genuine contention between people irrespective of their political alignments. So the topic of this thread is the penal system, specifically individuals who are incarcerated, how it fits into a given nation's justice system (I am only particularly acquainted with the US and UK, but welcome all others), and considering whether or not it needs to see change. It is not to really deal with the process of law enforcement or conviction, even though those are major issues that probably need looking at too. So to begin with, what's the problem? Well, some nations, those found in the UK and the US for example, experience relatively high rates of prisoner recidivism (IE, when they are released they are more likely to commit another crime as time passes). Prisoners are also notoriously expensive for the state, costing roughly £30,000 GBP (~$44,000 USD) per prisoner to secure, feed etcetera. Private prisons, which form a powerful interest group in the US, often get away with paying much less per prisoner, but at great cost to prisoner safety and welfare, and higher rates of recidivism. So let's quickly look at the purpose of prisons and incarceration, so we can better measure how effective they are. Deterrence is the first key purpose of a prison, and wider penal actions in general. The idea is based on the theory that people tend to weigh up the consequences of their actions, with a tough penalty for committing the 'wrong' (criminal) action weighing greater than the benefit they'd receive from that action. I'm less likely to steal your Apple if I might lose my hand as punishment, because an apple simply isn't worth my hand. Retribution is the second purpose of a prison. Simply put, people like to see others they deem 'bad' to suffer. It is cathartic, acts as a form of social validation that arguably helps people better triangulate their own morality, and it prevents people from engaging in vigilantism because they have sufficient trust in the law to exact 'just desserts' on criminals. Rehabilitation tends to, though not always, run at cross purposes to retribution. Rehabilitation emphasises the fact that many criminals are victims of poor circumstance, lack of opportunities, or have an absence of common advantages that would've made them less culpable to committing a crime. Incapacitation is the final element of any prison system, and probably the most vital. It simply is a way to keep the criminal's actions from harming the rest of society. Keeping a mass murderer behind walls is first and foremost a safety measure to prevent more mass murders. Deterrence and rehabilitation are both explicit about trying to reduce the net amount of crime in society. However, there have been a pretty compelling array of studies to show that, usually when weighing up the consequences of committing a negative action, people tend to evaluate it against the chance of being caught, not the consequences of being caught. if you only get a slap on the wrist but you're highly like to get caught, this is far more effective at deterring a crime than threatening a steep punishment but with a low likelihood of being caught. For this reason, I do not think prisons as deterrence are effective at achieving that goal. I'm going to tackle rehabilitation and retribution together, because they tend towards being mutually exclusive. In order to effectively rehabilitate somebody, and to change their hearts and their minds, you often need to give them chances, comfort and opportunity. This runs counter to retributive justice, which revels in the negative consequences an individual receives. The thing is, rehabilitative programs have been shown to produce strong results. recidivism rates are markedly lower, with my favourite example being a Texas prison giving inmates a puppy to look after and nurture (to then be given to veterans). It turns out that being given responsibility for something teaches you.. responsibility? recidivism rates for inmates program when from 50%, to 3% almost instantly. I believe a lot of the problems with many current prison systems stem from this attitude of 'it should be a bad place, those fuckers deserve it'. What I find particularly funny is that it is found on both sides of the political spectrum. conservatives love their talk about being tough on crime, with many snide remarks about 'not dropping the soap', but when I've talked about seeking to rehabilitate, not punish, certain kinds of criminals, liberals too have got upset and turned into frothing die-hard retributivists. these types of criminals might be rapists, or bankers who've conned a lot of people out of their cash. Here's the thing, you can either accept that crime, all crime, is a kind social sickness, a manifestation of symptoms betraying deeper issues, or not. The deterrence effect isn't really a thing for prisons, so we are left with two choices. Rehabilitation, which likely result in lower net crime, but also less of that satisfying feeling (some call it justice, I call it revenge), or retribution, which makes people feel better at the cost of more crime. Personally I think it would be worth trying to make prisons a nicer place to be. Shorter sentences with more emphasis on education and training for more minor offenses such as drugs and burglary. longer sentences to those who commit more serious crimes, as they're likely to take longer to 'cure' of their predilections. Yes, even money hungry banker-types can feel like they're more a part of society after being in prison, which is a great social leveller, just ask Jordan Belfort. These people owe a debt to society because by committing a crime they are causing it damage, surely we should offer them the tools to repay it and become participating members? Incapacitation in my ideal system (IE extremely long or complete incarceration) would be reserved for those simply too dangerous to release again. These people should also be treated reasonably well, they aren't there for 'punishment', but to keep the rest of us from being harmed. I'm sure some of you will disagree with this though so, have at me.
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Phyzzle posted:During the initial furor over the sentencing of the "Affluenza" teen, I read a memorable quote saying that when an emphasis on rehabilitation goes too far, it can become "making GBS threads on the victims." Well in the case of the 'affluenza' dude I think part of his problem is/was his fantastic privilege and lack of social concern. He should've been moved to an institution where nobody knew of his wealth, where he was the exact same as everybody else there. THAT would've been more effective rehabilitation imho. Victims have legitimate and strong emotions towards criminals, but I wonder how much we ought to indulge them? Particularly if indulging them indirectly leads to more instances of crime happening. If someone hurt my family, I would want the worst to happen to them.. But that's not justice, it's more like an urge for revenge. a neurotic ai fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not trying to get at the differences in sentencing here. This thread is more focused on the actual purpose of a conviction in the first place. The rich kid committing a crime is not a tragic figure, but that doesn't mean we should just say 'you've caused harm so now you ought to receive harm', if instead the alternative means available allows him to reintegrate at a society where he can make something of himself and.. Yknow.. Just generally be a better human being to himself and to others.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
ductonius posted:There is no political spectrum in the United States. Your political thought is all based on jingoistic right wing authoritarianism and just modifies it, sometimes with a brightly coloured jackboot, sometimes with a cross and sometimes treating "Mad Max" as an ideal world. I mean I'm not American nor do I live there so Yknow...
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
All together this is about what the purpose of a prison is. And I think it has become clearer and clearer that, if we actually want to reduce crime, we need to move away from the 'they are there to punish bad people' idea! It's not just about decent conditions, it's about fundamentally helping these people to readjust to being law abiding citizens. That means we need crimes, particularly less severe ones, to 'stick' far less to people throughout their lives, so they can actually get work. We need courses that give them real qualifications, and hope that they can make it in society rather than fall back into a life of crime.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 11:59
|
|