Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004

banned from Starbucks posted:

What are these free thrid places that no longer exist because I don't really remember having any growing up in the 90s either. The "free" option was go to the mall and look at stuff you couldn't afford. Everything cost money back then too.

Been to a mall lately? The ones here, even in the middle class suburbs, have explicit no loitering policy and don't allow teenagers to be around without parents.

When I look back at my own teenage days, the poo poo we did just doesn't exist anymore. Movie theaters are mostly gone, and the ones that still exist open in the late afternoon and want $12-15 a ticket. Can't hang out at arcades, as those don't exist anymore. Can't hang out at the mall, as they have the above policies. Can't hang out in a city park without the cops showing up to give them the stink eye. School grounds are all fenced and monitored now, so can't even hang around there.

The last real 'third space' is the public library, and it's underfunded to hell so it's got little to interest them.

Main Paineframe posted:

"Only" got 7 years in jail? For a 14-year-old, that's half their lives up to that point. Moreover, it's a particularly important 7 years in their education and socialization. They're spending their entire teenage years in prison, and getting out at age 21 with no money, no skills, no way to make a living, and no social connections aside from their families, their middle school classmates, and their fellow inmates. They'll be thoroughly unprepared for living on their own, and while most of their age group was learning how to live independently and make independent life decisions, they spent those years in the highly regimented prison life. Educationally, they'll have a prison GED and probably not much more.

Not to mention a felony on their record that means they'll probably never get a better job than line cook, since the last industry that really hires ex-cons is food service.

Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 28, 2023

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, rehabilitation is less expensive anyway. It is not cheap to keep someone locked up, having them instead be a tax paying citizen is good financially for society.

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004

Prison sentences aren't deterrents anyway. Even the DoJ is up front about it:

quote:

1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful
deterrent than the punishment.

Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more
effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.

2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison
isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.

Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but
prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime.
Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective
crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize
many to the threat of future imprisonment.

See “Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence” for
additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent.

3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that
criminals will be caught and punished.

The police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s
perception of the certainty of being caught. Strategies that use the police as
“sentinels,” such as hot spots policing, are particularly effective. A criminal’s
behavior is more likely to be influenced by seeing a police officer with handcuffs
and a radio than by a new law increasing penalties.

4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter
crime.

Laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the
severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about
the sanctions for specific crimes.
More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and
prisons may exacerbate recidivism.
See “Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence” for
additional discussion on the severity of punishment.

5. There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, “Research on the deterrent
effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment
increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates.”

Their opinion is that custodial sentences primarily make prisoners incapable of committing similar crimes while in prison, but do not generally have any provable effect on recidivism, although prison experiences do exacerbate it.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply