Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I bet a lot of offenders would rather have a Draconian fixed term than an indefinite stay in a loony bin.

If prisons are operated for reasons of public safety, why do we have fixed-term sentences at all? If you are a risk to society, and you are sent to prison because we aren't safe with you at large, surely you should stay there until you are no longer a risk to us? This might be achieved in five days, five years, or never, but the criterion would be the risk that you pose to innocent people who have not yet become your victims. Fixed-term sentences can't deal with this situation, can they?

[GE Morton]

I bet a lot of offenders would rather have a Draconian fixed term than an indefinite stay in a loony bin.

If prisons are operated for reasons of public safety, why do we have fixed-term sentences at all? If you are a risk to society, and you are sent to prison because we aren't safe with you at large, surely you should stay there until you are no longer a risk to us? This might be achieved in five days, five years, or never, but the criterion would be the risk that you pose to innocent people who have not yet become your victims. Fixed-term sentences can't deal with this situation, can they?

The only reliable grounds we have for assessing the risk an inmate poses is his past history. The assessments of shrinks, counselors, bureaucrats are subjective and worthless.

[GE Morton]

Correcting the offender in these cases requires changing how they think about these choices in the future. And that may not always be possible. If the behavior rewarded itself previously, then it will likely be attempted again. Punishment serves to communicate to the offender that the behavior will not be tolerated. Prison is a minimal punishment. But a shorter term can be offered to motivate the offender to participate in rehabilitation programs that may lead to a successful release.

No rehabilitation programs reduce the recidivism rate by more than 25% --- and those are typically pilot programs heavily staffed and funded. When they become "mainstream" the success rate drops. Moreover, all studies of the effectiveness of those programs suffer from "selection bias" --- since participation cannot be compelled, enrollment is dominated by inmates who've learned their lesson and probably would not re-offend anyway. You get more enrollment if you promise reductions in sentences --- but that supplies an ulterior motive.

Rehabilitation is the goal, but it may not be achievable by those who would rather not change.

Rehabilitation should not be the goal of a criminal justice system. That goal should be protecting the public from the depredations of criminals, and securing justice for their victims. Criminal rehabilitation is largely a Pollyanna pipedream of naive do-gooders with misplaced maternal impulses, and an exercise in rent-seeking from practitioners of the various social pseudo-sciences.

[Sculptor1]

Correcting the offender in these cases requires changing how they think about these choices in the future. And that may not always be possible. If the behavior rewarded itself previously, then it will likely be attempted again. Punishment serves to communicate to the offender that the behavior will not be tolerated. Prison is a minimal punishment. But a shorter term can be offered to motivate the offender to participate in rehabilitation programs that may lead to a successful release.

No rehabilitation programs reduce the recidivism rate by more than 25%

Please cite!
Since many countries routinely have recidivism rates typically more than 25% that the USA this figure is so obviously wrong.
Did you make it up on the spot? Unless reform is the goal there is little point in a penal system.

[Marvin_Edwards]

No rehabilitation programs reduce the recidivism rate by more than 25% --- and those are typically pilot programs heavily staffed and funded. When they become "mainstream" the success rate drops. Moreover, all studies of the effectiveness of those programs suffer from "selection bias" --- since participation cannot be compelled, enrollment is dominated by inmates who've learned their lesson and probably would not re-offend anyway. You get more enrollment if you promise reductions in sentences --- but that supplies an ulterior motive.

I'll take the 25% drop in recidivism any day. Applying social science can probably improve that and dealing with community issues that breed criminal behavior would make the success rate higher.

Rehabilitation should not be the goal of a criminal justice system. That goal should be protecting the public from the depredations of criminals, and securing justice for their victims. Criminal rehabilitation is largely a Pollyanna pipedream of naive do-gooders with misplaced maternal impulses, and an exercise in rent-seeking from practitioners of the various social pseudo-sciences.

So, when you speak of "securing justice for their victims", what do you mean?

[Belindi]

I bet a lot of offenders would rather have a Draconian fixed term than an indefinite stay in a loony bin.

If prisons are operated for reasons of public safety, why do we have fixed-term sentences at all? If you are a risk to society, and you are sent to prison because we aren't safe with you at large, surely you should stay there until you are no longer a risk to us? This might be achieved in five days, five years, or never, but the criterion would be the risk that you pose to innocent people who have not yet become your victims. Fixed-term sentences can't deal with this situation, can they?

We have fixed term sentences because indefinite sentences are unjust (and probably very draining on the public purse) Looking objectively at the population of potential offenders as a population, everybody among this population is a potential offender.

Fixed term sentences cannot stop crime. Nothing short of universal chemical control of an entire population can stop crime.

The most effective and least expensive way to lessen crime is as much as possible to remove the causes of crime.

For instance, crimes committed by criminal gangs. These gangs enlist children. Children need to be saved from environments where they are endangered by gangs, and provided with means to keep themselves and their families alive after they become adults.In this way the criminal gangs would lose many of their labourers and thereby some of their immediate power, and their future labour force would not be available.

[Belindi]

GE Morton, successful rehabilitation is less expensive than all forms of retribution.

[GE Morton]

I'll take the 25% drop in recidivism any day. Applying social science can probably improve that and dealing with community issues that breed criminal behavior would make the success rate higher.

"Social Science" has been trying to improve that result for 50+ years, Marvin. What that 25% drop means in that instead of 79% re-offending within 5 years, only 59% re-offend within 5 years. And there is a downside --- because of the reduced sentence incentives offered to induce participation, that 59% are released to the streets sooner, and begin racking up more victims.

Rehabilitation should not be the goal of a criminal justice system. That goal should be protecting the public from the depredations of criminals, and securing justice for their victims. Criminal rehabilitation is largely a Pollyanna pipedream of naive do-gooders with misplaced maternal impulses, and an exercise in rent-seeking from practitioners of the various social pseudo-sciences.

So, when you speak of "securing justice for their victims", what do you mean?

I mean what the word "justice" itself means, i.e., "securing to each what he is due."

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/justice

I favor what is called the "restitution model" of criminal justice (distinguished from the "rehabilitation model" and the "punishment model"). Although ancient in concept, a modern version was outlined by Randy Barnett in 1977:

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

Per this model, immediately after a criminal conviction a restitution hearing is held before the same jury to determine the extent of damages inflicted upon victims of the crimes of which the the defendant has just been convicted, using the rules followed in civil tort proceedings. The defendant is then sentenced to pay those damages, including punitive damages. Those become his restitution obligation. Any assets he has may be seized to satisfy that obligation. If his assets are insufficient he is sent to a work center, where he will be compelled to work, paid at market rates for the skills involved, to cover the costs of his room and board and until his restitution obligation has been paid in full. If it takes the rest of his life, as would likely be the case for homicides and many aggravated assaults, so be it.

Only the victims can forgive or mitigate a restitution obligation. No court, parole board, or other public official can do so. However, relatives or friends can help the convict satisfy it if they wish.

[GE Morton]

GE Morton, successful rehabilitation is less expensive than all forms of retribution.

You might be right there, Belindi. But, unfortunately, the rate of successful rehabilitation is dismally low. And 59% (or more) of those presumably
"rehabilitated" offenders are released early, whereupon they immediately resume their criminal lifestyles.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Per this model, immediately after a criminal conviction a restitution hearing is held before the same jury to determine the extent of damages inflicted upon victims of the crimes of which the the defendant has just been convicted, using the rules followed in civil tort proceedings. The defendant is then sentenced to pay those damages, including punitive damages. Those become his restitution obligation. Any assets he has may be seized to satisfy that obligation. If his assets are insufficient he is sent to a work center, where he will be compelled to work, paid at market rates for the skills involved, to cover the costs of his room and board and until his restitution obligation has been paid in full. If it takes the rest of his life, as would likely be the case for homicides and many aggravated assaults, so be it.

Only the victims can forgive or mitigate a restitution obligation. No court, parole board, or other public official can do so. However, relatives or friends can help the convict satisfy it if they wish.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of restitution where feasible.

My view is that a justice system is put in place to protect everyone's rights from violations. So, what the offender justly deserves is a penalty consistent with that goal. Therefore, a just penalty would include (a) repair the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correct the behavior of the offender if corrigible, (c) protect society from further harm by securing the offender until his behavior is corrected, and (d) doing no more harm to the offender and his rights than is reasonably necessary to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

The notion of forgiveness being up to the victim is also realizable in some cases. I believe this is under the heading of "restorative justice". It is a painful process for both parties, and it does not necessarily reduce the penalty, but it does bring closure to some victims and a close-up view of the harm they've done to the offender.

[GE Morton]

Please cite!

https://law.jrank.org/pages/1936/Rehabi ... -work.html

Since many countries routinely have recidivism rates typically more than 25% that the USA this figure is so obviously wrong.

As I tried to explain to you before, comparing recidivism rates (and crime rates) among countries with different demographics is idle. Also, different countries report recidivism over different time spans.

Unless reform is the goal there is little point in a penal system.

How absurd. The point of a criminal justice system is protecting the public from criminals, and securing justice for their victims. That is why it is called a "criminal justice system." "Rehabilitation" or "reform" is a spurious, fanciful, and Quixotic goal hoked up by early 20th-century "progressives."

[Wdk7]

Please cite!

https://law.jrank.org/pages/1936/Rehabi ... -work.html

Since many countries routinely have recidivism rates typically more than 25% that the USA this figure is so obviously wrong.

As I tried to explain to you before, comparing recidivism rates (and crime rates) among countries with different demographics is idle. Also, different countries report recidivism over different time spans.

Unless reform is the goal there is little point in a penal system.

How absurd. The point of a criminal justice system is protecting the public from criminals, and securing justice for their victims. That is why it is called a "criminal justice system." "Rehabilitation" or "reform" is a spurious, fanciful, and Quixotic goal hoked up by early 20th-century "progressives."

Ultimately most offenders will be released from prison at some point and returned to society, so why should an atempt at rehabilition not be a factor in the criminal justice system? I dont think rehabilitation can be achieved for every criminal, but if any rehabilitation can be achieved amongst the number of people being released from prison; I'd say that's still a worthy benifit to reducing overall crime.

[GE Morton]

Ultimately most offenders will be released from prison at some point and returned to society, so why should an atempt at rehabilition not be a factor in the criminal justice system? I dont think rehabilitation can be achieved for every criminal, but if any rehabilitation can be achieved amongst the number of people being released from prison; I'd say that's still a worthy benifit to reducing overall crime.

See responses to Belindi and Marvin, just above.

The answer there is to NOT release offenders until they have fully compensated the damages they have inflicted upon their victims, and for repeat offenders, NEVER release them.

[Sculptor1]

25% improvement is not bad, but since other countries still do much better you sill have to ask what is going wrong in the USA?
If criminals come back to deprivation and poverty, no amount of rehab is going to help.

[Pattern-chaser]

My view is that a justice system is put in place to protect everyone's rights from violations. So, what the offender justly deserves is a penalty consistent with that goal. Therefore, a just penalty would include (a) repair the harm to the victim if possible, (b) correct the behavior of the offender if corrigible, (c) protect society from further harm by securing the offender until his behavior is corrected, and (d) doing no more harm to the offender and his rights than is reasonably necessary to accomplish (a), (b), and (c).

Remembering that our "rights" are conferred by ourselves, not 'natural' rights, there is little to argue with here. This looks to me like a just response to those who break the rules of conduct we citizens require of one another.