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

[Belindi]

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.

How can any man or angel compensate for raping a child ?
I agree certain repeat offenders should never be released, The criterion for release from detention should be thorough assessment of the probability of reoffending.Criminal justice, besides protecting law and order also has to demonstrate to offenders the disapproval of society.

[Belindi]

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.

How can any man or angel compensate for raping a child ?
I agree certain repeat offenders should never be released, The criterion for release from detention should be thorough assessment of the probability of reoffending.

Criminal justice, besides protecting law and order also has to demonstrate to offenders the disapproval of society. Prisons are inefffective for this task because prisoners commonly join a subculture for criminals within prisons, subcultures which are ruled hierarchically by the more powerful inmates.

[GE Morton]

How can any man or angel compensate for raping a child ?

You can't. Nor for homicides. No monetary compensation can undo the wrong done, but common law tradition permits suits for wrongful death. In most cases the damages awarded are very high, and the inmate will likely spend the rest of his life working to pay it off.

I agree certain repeat offenders should never be released, The criterion for release from detention should be thorough assessment of the probability of reoffending.Criminal justice, besides protecting law and order also has to demonstrate to offenders the disapproval of society.

Well, unfortunately, those assessments by parole boards and social (pseudo)scientists are subjective and wrong as often as they are right. The only factors reliably predictive of future criminal conduct is past conduct, and perhaps age.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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.

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.

GE Morton, the statement does not seem to make sense unless it is isolated to offenders who also happen to be victimizers. In other words, considering that many convicted criminals are only charged with victimless crimes, your sentence would make no sense as written, at least if taken at face value. Using the philosophical principal of charity, I will assume you mean to talk about violent victimizers not criminal offenders, right?

If so, it still seems your statement still presents some contradictions. Namely, a deranged dangerous violent victimizer generally cannot physically compensate for the damages their victimization caused if they are in a cage, unable to work and earn income, and not receiving treatment or rehabilitation. In contrast, providing mental health treatment and rehabilitation services and, if possible to safely do, releasing the rehabilitated victimizer is what would enable the rehabilitated victimizer to attempt to earn some income to repay the debts caused by the victimization. Granted, some damage can not be undone, but there still can be value in having the victimizer pay some kind of financial restitution to the victim or the victim's family.

[LuckyR]

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.

I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.

[GE Morton]

. . . the statement does not seem to make sense unless it is isolated to offenders who also happen to be victimizers. In other words, considering that many convicted criminals are only charged with victimless crimes, your sentence would make no sense as written, at least if taken at face value. Using the philosophical principal of charity, I will assume you mean to talk about violent victimizers not criminal offenders, right?

Right indeed. I've made clear elsewhere that my arguments apply only to "real" crimes, i.e., those with actual victims. Laws criminalizing activities that impose no injuries, losses, or risks upon others should be repealed.

If so, it still seems your statement still presents some contradictions. Namely, a deranged dangerous violent victimizer generally cannot physically compensate for the damages their victimization caused if they are in a cage, unable to work and earn income, and not receiving treatment or rehabilitation.

Per the restitution model inmates would not be kept in cages, at least not during the workday. They would work in prison industries, and kept confined until their restitution obligations were paid in full.

In contrast, providing mental health treatment and rehabilitation services and, if possible to safely do, releasing the rehabilitated victimizer is what would enable the rehabilitated victimizer to attempt to earn some income to repay the debts caused by the victimization. Granted, some damage can not be undone, but there still can be value in having the victimizer pay some kind of financial restitution to the victim or the victim's family.

The trouble is, both "mental health treatment" and "rehabilitation" are largely ineffective. Nationally, the 5 year recidivism rate for inmates released from state prisons is 77%.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986

Most of those inmates have participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program. The best of those programs reduce recidivism by about 25% --- which means that instead of 77% re-offending, only 58% do (the success rate for most programs is considerably lower). In fact, the programs are counter-productive --- having "successfully" completed some sort of rehab program is a factor considered by parole boards for early release. Since most of those thus released will re-offend, the net result is more criminals on the streets, and more victims. Keep in mind also that the official recidivism rate counts only those released inmates who are re-arrested within 5 years. Many others also continue their criminal activities, but manage to avoid arrest (within 5 years).

The approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system. Why do we have one? Is it to "rehabilitate" the predators among us --- a spurious and Quixotic goal --- or protect us from them and secure justice for their victims? Is it to be a criminal justice system, or a criminal welfare system?

[Pattern-chaser]

I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.

Really? Is this a significant element of this discussion, for you? What your taxes are used for? I know this is a common attitude in the US, but it does seem to cloud the real issues, sometimes...?

[LuckyR]

I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.

Really? Is this a significant element of this discussion, for you? What your taxes are used for? I know this is a common attitude in the US, but it does seem to cloud the real issues, sometimes...?

When others are advocating life sentances? Yes, the recidivism rate is important to me, why wouldn't it be? As to mindful stewardship of limited public funds when there is so much public need, I am surprised you are not a fan, but so be it.

Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process. Others set up processes that emulate their values and let these processes grind away and whatever outcome pops out the other end is acceptable. Neither is superior, just two different ways of looking at it.

[Robert66]

I agree with LuckyR that the high cost of imprisonment is a crucial factor to consider.

Societies generally need less prisoners, while still needing some (preferably fewer) prisons for the worst offenders, as has been amply covered already. With a shift toward private prisons occurring globally, a solution looms into view. The private prison owners should be remunerated according to the success they achieve in reducing recidivism, and finding gainful employment for criminals. If the business model for these owners is merely more prisoners = more income, then we can surely expect poor societal outcomes.

[LuckyR]

I agree with LuckyR that the high cost of imprisonment is a crucial factor to consider.

Societies generally need less prisoners, while still needing some (preferably fewer) prisons for the worst offenders, as has been amply covered already. With a shift toward private prisons occurring globally, a solution looms into view. The private prison owners should be remunerated according to the success they achieve in reducing recidivism, and finding gainful employment for criminals. If the business model for these owners is merely more prisoners = more income, then we can surely expect poor societal outcomes.

Unfortunately for private prisons, they have a reputation for paying kickbacks to judges for sentancing prisoners to their business. Not a fan.

[Pattern-chaser]

I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.

Really? Is this a significant element of this discussion, for you? What your taxes are used for? I know this is a common attitude in the US, but it does seem to cloud the real issues, sometimes...?

When others are advocating life sentances? Yes, the recidivism rate is important to me, why wouldn't it be? As to mindful stewardship of limited public funds when there is so much public need, I am surprised you are not a fan, but so be it.

I commented on your mention of cost, not recidivism (which is a separate issue).


I think that cost is only one factor in such matters, and possibly not the most important one. So I tend not to take a great deal of notice of cost, when compared with justice; the rights of victims; the rights of offenders; the rights of all the other members of society; the needs of all members of society; the duties and responsibilities of victims, offenders and everyone else; whether imprisonment is an effective form of punishment; whether punishment is the optimal response to offences; and so on and on.

Cost belongs in that list, of course, but only as one element of many, IMO.

[GE Morton]

Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process.

I agree, in substance.

Per the restitution model there are no fixed prison terms. The inmate is kept confined until his restitution obligation is paid in full. That obligation consists of the damages/losses inflicted upon his victims, as determined in a hearing following conviction, plus the costs to the State to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, plus his ongoing costs of confinement. Those costs must be factored into any cost-benefit calculation.

[Robert66]

I agree with LuckyR that the high cost of imprisonment is a crucial factor to consider.

Societies generally need less prisoners, while still needing some (preferably fewer) prisons for the worst offenders, as has been amply covered already. With a shift toward private prisons occurring globally, a solution looms into view. The private prison owners should be remunerated according to the success they achieve in reducing recidivism, and finding gainful employment for criminals. If the business model for these owners is merely more prisoners = more income, then we can surely expect poor societal outcomes.

Unfortunately for private prisons, they have a reputation for paying kickbacks to judges for sentancing prisoners to their business. Not a fan.

Ok, you are not a fan - neither am I. Doesn't mean there isn't a better way, eg as I have outlined.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

. . . the statement does not seem to make sense unless it is isolated to offenders who also happen to be victimizers. In other words, considering that many convicted criminals are only charged with victimless crimes, your sentence would make no sense as written, at least if taken at face value. Using the philosophical principal of charity, I will assume you mean to talk about violent victimizers not criminal offenders, right?

Right indeed. I've made clear elsewhere that my arguments apply only to "real" crimes, i.e., those with actual victims. Laws criminalizing activities that impose no injuries, losses, or risks upon others should be repealed.

In the way I use the words, a marijuana smoker who gets put in prison for possessing small amounts of marijuana, and who is not innocent of the charged crime (i.e. illegal act), is thus a "real criminal".

As another example in the way I use the words "real" and "criminal", Martin Luther King Jr. was a real criminal.

Accordingly. if you mean to talk only about the fraction of criminals that also happen to be victimizers, I request that for my sake--at least in communications with me--you specifically use a phrase like "criminal victimizers".

Even most "criminal victimizers" are presumably not technically violent, so if you want to talk specifically about the fraction of criminals who happen to also be violent victimizers, please do further specify that by saying something like "criminal violent victimizers" or such, simply so I know you are talking about that fraction of criminals and not talking about the majority of criminals since you consider the majority of incarcerated criminals to be unreal criminals even though the reality of their imprisonment is real. I make these requests solely so I can understand you better, and if you choose to fulfill these terminological requests, which is totally your choice one way or the other, then I do appreciate it.

In contrast, providing mental health treatment and rehabilitation services and, if possible to safely do, releasing the rehabilitated victimizer is what would enable the rehabilitated victimizer to attempt to earn some income to repay the debts caused by the victimization. Granted, some damage can not be undone, but there still can be value in having the victimizer pay some kind of financial restitution to the victim or the victim's family.

The trouble is, both "mental health treatment" and "rehabilitation" are largely ineffective. Nationally, the 5 year recidivism rate for inmates released from state prisons is 77%.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986

I could be mistaken, but unfortunately it seems the stats to which you linked involve what you might call "fake criminals". To be applicable, I think you would need to provide statistics regarding only the much smaller subset of violent victimizers that you mean to talk about.

The rehabilitation or mental health treatment provided to a violent schizophrenic would of course be very different than the so-called "mental health treatment" or "rehabilitation" provided to (or forced upon) a peaceful pot smoker or on some peaceful gay kid being forced into conversion therapy.

Indeed, if the person is a pacifist and is being violently forced into a cage and given so-called "rehabilitation" or "mental health treatment", then I assume we can agree the titles "rehabilitation" or "mental health treatment" would be misnomers--even though I do not doubt a violent government would label its caging of peaceful people as "rehabilitation" or such and its non-consensual brainwashing of peaceful people as "mental health treatment". I think we can agree that the statistics regarding the success of such non-defensively violent programs are not relevant to this discussion.

Needless to say, we must be very careful--cynical even--about the labels assigned to any government program on any government website, which will presumably tend to reflect an extreme pro-establishment bias.

The approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system.

Yes, exactly. Well put.

Why do we have one?

The question of why we have one is very different than why we might want one. The former question addresses primarily the motivation of the violent person(s) (i.e. the imprisoners) as well as the reason for that violent person's success (i.e. the fact that prisons do currently exist) in implementing their goals (e.g. to make profit) which in modern politics is arguably perhaps best summed by the words violent plutocracy. The second question is more pipe-dream-oriented, and thus more philosophical, which in turn runs the risk of becoming prescriptive where the first question is inherently a matter of the descriptive.

For example, as Frederick Douglass escaped slavery, it would be a very different question for him to wonder why slavery did exist at that time, than if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality that is presumably a more utopian version of the society that actually existed at the time.

The two different questions may seem to converge together to the degree one assumes the violent rulers of society are benevolent (e.g. that one is living under a benevolent dictator) and/or that society is already as utopian as practically possible, but I believe we can all easily agree such assumptions are very mistaken.

[Pattern-chaser]

Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process.

I agree, in substance.

Per the restitution model there are no fixed prison terms. The inmate is kept confined until his restitution obligation is paid in full. That obligation consists of the damages/losses inflicted upon his victims, as determined in a hearing following conviction, plus the costs to the State to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, plus his ongoing costs of confinement. Those costs must be factored into any cost-benefit calculation.

A question: how does this cost-based approach benefit society, offenders or victims? What are re-offending rates? Are offenders rehabilitated?