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

[GE Morton]

So your experience is that the wealthy with their legal teams tend to get more draconian sentancing than the rabble?

I didn't say that. Nor have I seen any data which would support an answer to that question. While sentences for the wealthy tend to be less draconian than those for "the rabble," the former's crimes tend to be generally considered less serious, i.e., they commit few murders, rapes, aggravated assaults; etc. Do you have some data on sentencing disparities between "the poor" and "the rich" for comparable crimes?

[LuckyR]

So your experience is that the wealthy with their legal teams tend to get more draconian sentancing than the rabble?

I didn't say that. Nor have I seen any data which would support an answer to that question. While sentences for the wealthy tend to be less draconian than those for "the rabble," the former's crimes tend to be generally considered less serious, i.e., they commit few murders, rapes, aggravated assaults; etc. Do you have some data on sentencing disparities between "the poor" and "the rich" for comparable crimes?

The literature is less robust than that for racial differences in sentancing but it does exist.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5293900069

[Sculptor1]

There are some crimes so heinous, and criminals so dangerous that a choice not to have prisons would have to include a choice to implement capital punishment.

Since I am not willing to accept that step, the necessity of incarceration is required.

That prisons could be more useful, practical, and effective is another question.

[Pattern-chaser]

I take the thrust of the OP's question to be whether prisons are necessary at all, not why the present system exists as it does. I think the answer to the latter question is, because we don't understand the purpose that system purports to serve.

Yes. I think perhaps the answer to the "latter question" is that there are quite a few possible purposes for imprisonment, but we have not discussed or agreed which of them our prisons should satisfy. Possible purposes include: punishment, deterrence, isolation (from the general population), rehabilitation, protection, re-education, and so on. Until we are clear what the purpose of prisons is, we can reach no conclusions as to whether we "need" them, as the OP asks.

[GE Morton]

Yes. I think perhaps the answer to the "latter question" is that there are quite a few possible purposes for imprisonment, but we have not discussed or agreed which of them our prisons should satisfy. Possible purposes include: punishment, deterrence, isolation (from the general population), rehabilitation, protection, re-education, and so on. Until we are clear what the purpose of prisons is, we can reach no conclusions as to whether we "need" them, as the OP asks.

The answer as to the purpose of prisons depends on the answer to a broader question: What is the purpose of the criminal justice system as a whole, including criminal laws, police, criminal courts, and prisons?

I take that answer to be, to protect the citizens from the depredations of criminals, and secure justice for the victims of crimes. If that is so, then the purpose of prisons is obvious --- they are places where persons who habitually and intentionally inflict harms and losses on others can be kept away from their victim pool, and can be forced to work to make restitution for the damages they've inflicted. Any other suggested purpose is secondary, if not superfluous.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcera ... ted_States

Here is what the Wikipedia page you provided says:

In 2016, there were an estimated 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the United States.[37] Over the course of that year, U.S. law enforcement agencies made approximately 10.7 million arrests, excluding arrests for traffic violations.[37] In that year, approximately 2.3 million people were incarcerated in jail or prison.

[...]

In 2002 (latest available data by type of offense), 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails were in prison for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge. 41% percent of convicted and unconvicted jail inmates in 2002 had a current or prior violent offense.

Takeaways:

It appears the number of arrests in the USA is more than 10x the number of violent crimes committed, even excluding traffic violations.

Only 21.6% of convicted inmates in the USA are charged with violent crimes.

That means 78.4% (over 3/4th) are non-violent.


That gives us an answer for #1 and #2 of my requested stats:

1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders)

2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders)

3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers)

If you do not mind, please provide all three percentages with sources.

In theory, #1 and #2 need to equal 100%, and #3 needs to be less than #2 since #3 is a subset of #2.

#1 (violent offenders) is 21.6%.

#2 (non-violent offenders) is 78.4%.

Do you know what #3 is?

We can say for certain #3 must be less than #2, since #3 is a subset of #2.

I am not a leftist, but as I wrote in my topic Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man, I think the idea of a benevolent dictator (or worse a mob of humans acting together as a big government) is a pipe dream.

I have much sympathy for that view. Unfortunately, there is no one to whom we can turn to govern us other than ourselves.

I eagerly agree if you remove the word "unfortunately".

In line with my topic, My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom, I would phrase your agreeable sentiment as this: Luckily, self-government (a.k.a. political freedom) exists as the antithesis to its horrible opposite.

I am not a leftist, but I believe it is very clear that the political system and government in the United States is plutocratic, violently so of course. Do you not agree?

Plutocratic? No.

I don't think I've ever met a person, including elected officials themselves, who doesn't think money (most notably in the form of campaign contributions) has way too much influence in the political system in the USA. I mean that with utmost respect. I am eager to learn about new different viewpoints.

Before I get too excited, let me make sure I am understanding correctly (which is never a safe assumption) and that you do have as unusual a view as it initially seems. To be clear, you are saying you don't think the members of Congress are generally all sell outs; is that right? To be clear, you are saying you don't think campaign financing plays a major role in who gets elected and who doesn't; is that right? To be clear, when it comes to voting on bills and making similar political decisions, you don't think members of Congress significantly cater to their campaign donors and the aims of paid lobbyists; is that right?

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, to what degree do you think the average elected member of Congress is influenced by special interests through any financial mechanism such as but not limited to paid lobbying, campaign contributions, kickbacks, or bribes?

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, in terms of honesty and immunity to self-serving greed, how fit do you think average currently serving member of Congress is to fill the aforementioned role of benevolent dictator?

Also, if money plays only a minor role in politics, then why is so much money (literally $10+ billion per year in the USA alone) spent on it? Are the campaign financiers just foolishly wasting their money? For example, is every company on this list just stupid? Or are the billions they spend to manipulate the system each year worth it?

1. Are you asking a descriptive scientific question about why the status quo happens to be the way it is (i.e. why prisons happen to exist at the moment), which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking why slavery exists while he is escaping?

No. I take the answer to that question to be obvious. They exist because they are widely thought to be necessary.

2. Or are you asking a philosophically hypothetical question (with potentially prescriptive answers) about why you and I might want something (in this case prisons) to exist or not, which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking himself if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality?

I'm not asking that question either. Nor was the OP.

I am the OP.

His question did not inquire about anyone's wants; he asked whether prisons are needed.

Needs only have value in relation to wants, such that X is needed for Y.

I need oxygen to live. If I don't want to live, the would-be need is moot.

I need tickets to get in the concert. If I don't want to get in the concert, the would-be need is moot.

I take the answer to the latter to also be obvious --- as long as there are persons who victimize others, then some means of removing those persons from the society will be needed.

I agree. Thus, I support forcefully putting people who have some kind of psychological abnormality making them significantly more prone to committing victimization (e.g. serial killers, violent schizophrenics, etc.) into humane mental health asylums where they get humane medical treatment within reason, even if for many it is comfort measures only until they comfortably die from old age. As for the question in the OP, I do not include such humane mental health institutionalization under the label 'prisons'.

One thing I believe that you and I both want is to protect people from non-defensive violence and victimization.

Prisons are not needed for that.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that I want done for which prisons are needed.

Thus, for me from my perspective, prisons are neither needed nor wanted.

[GE Morton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcera ... ted_States

Here is what the Wikipedia page you provided says:

In 2016, there were an estimated 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the United States.[37] Over the course of that year, U.S. law enforcement agencies made approximately 10.7 million arrests, excluding arrests for traffic violations.[37] In that year, approximately 2.3 million people were incarcerated in jail or prison.

[...]

In 2002 (latest available data by type of offense), 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails were in prison for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge. 41% percent of convicted and unconvicted jail inmates in 2002 had a current or prior violent offense.

Takeaways:

It appears the number of arrests in the USA is more than 10x the number of violent crimes committed, even excluding traffic violations.

Only 21.6% of convicted inmates in the USA are charged with violent crimes.

That means 78.4% (over 3/4th) are non-violent.

That's the wrong takeaway. You're citing the offense breakdown for persons in local jails. It's true that most of those inmates will not have been arrested for a violent crime --- most of them will have been arrested for a property crime, such as burglary, shoplifting, trespassing, vandalism, larceny, auto theft, and several others. All of those offenders are "victimizers." Most of them will be multiple repeat offenders and will serve minimal sentences, whereupon they'll be released to continue their depredations, which they reliably will do.

This table breaks down local jail inmates as follows:

Violent: 29%

Property: 25%

Drugs: 25%

Public Order: 21%

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

Some public order offenses (e.g., DUI, disorderly conduct) involve victims; others (e.g., prostitution) do not. So again, lacking further breakdown, we can guess that half of these crimes involve victims. So the majority of non-violent jail inmates are still "victimizers."

The correct takeaway is, that the system is wholly ineffective in protecting its citizens from property offenders. I gave you the statistics for state prison inmates --- 55% are serving time for violent offenses. Property crimes far outnumber violent crimes. If the system were working properly, property offenders should substantially outnumber violent offenders in state prisons.

The upshot, of course, is that many more people, not fewer, should be in prisons.

That gives us an answer for #1 and #2 of my requested stats:

1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders)

2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders)

3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers)

If you do not mind, please provide all three percentages with sources.

In theory, #1 and #2 need to equal 100%, and #3 needs to be less than #2 since #3 is a subset of #2.

#1 (violent offenders) is 21.6%.

#2 (non-violent offenders) is 78.4%.

That is incorrect. Your 21.6% is for inmates in local jails, not "inmates in USA."

I have much sympathy for that view. Unfortunately, there is no one to whom we can turn to govern us other than ourselves.

I eagerly agree if you remove the word "unfortunately".

In line with my topic, My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom, I would phrase your agreeable sentiment as this: Luckily, self-government (a.k.a. political freedom) exists as the antithesis to its horrible opposite.

Are you there equating "self-government" with anarchy?

I don't think I've ever met a person, including elected officials themselves, who doesn't think money (most notably in the form of campaign contributions) has way too much influence in the political system in the USA. I mean that with utmost respect. I am eager to learn about new different viewpoints.

I think its influence is nil. Which is not to say it irrelevant. Money is necessary to put one's message before voters. It has nothing to do with how voters respond to those messages.

To be clear, you are saying you don't think the members of Congress are generally all sell outs; is that right? To be clear, you are saying you don't think campaign financing plays a major role in who gets elected and who doesn't; is that right? To be clear, when it comes to voting on bills and making similar political decisions, you don't think members of Congress significantly cater to their campaign donors and the aims of paid lobbyists; is that right?

If by "sell-outs," you mean accepting bribes, then no, I don't think most of them do that. Nor will most of them cater to the interests of a fat-cat donor if they think it will cost them votes. If they think voters will be indifferent on such a question then yes, they may well seek to please that donor. Most of them are populist demagogues, not toadies for "the rich." Demagogues on the Right pander to chauvinism; those on the Left to envy.

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, to what degree do you think the average elected member of Congress is influenced by special interests through any financial mechanism such as but not limited to paid lobbying, campaign contributions, kickbacks, or bribes?

Answered above.

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, in terms of honesty and immunity to self-serving greed, how fit do you think average currently serving member of Congress is to fill the aforementioned role of benevolent dictator?

No person is fit for that role.

Also, if money plays only a minor role in politics, then why is so much money (literally $10+ billion per year in the USA alone) spent on it? Are the campaign financiers just foolishly wasting their money? For example, is every company on this list just stupid? Or are the billions they spend to manipulate the system each year worth it?

I never said money "plays only a minor role" in politics. It plays the same role in politics it plays in advertising --- you can't sell your product if no one knows about it. You have to spend money to bring your product to the public's attention. If you consider a certain political candidate will be supportive of your interests, or at least more supportive than his rivals, you spend money to get his message out. But how voters respond to that message, just as how they respond to your advertising, is beyond your control.

I need tickets to get in the concert. If I don't want to get in the concert, the would-be need is moot.

Correct. We need prisons if we wish not to be victims of robbers, rapists, thieves, swindlers, and murders.

I agree. Thus, I support forcefully putting people who have some kind of psychological abnormality making them significantly more prone to committing victimization (e.g. serial killers, violent schizophrenics, etc.) into humane mental health asylums where they get humane medical treatment within reason, even if for many it is comfort measures only until they comfortably die from old age. As for the question in the OP, I do not include such humane mental health institutionalization under the label 'prisons'.

There are many more types of "victimizers" than serial killers and "violent schizophrenics." Nor is most criminal behavior due to any "psychological abnormality" (although that entire concept is so nebulous as to be useless). Crime doesn't have "causes," any more than any other human behavior has causes. It has, like all other behavior, motives. Asking what "caused" Alfie to steal a teevee makes no more sense than asking what "caused" Bruno to buy one.

One thing I believe that you and I both want is to protect people from non-defensive violence and victimization.

Prisons are not needed for that.

What are your alternatives? Your mental health asylums? Crime is not a medical problem.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

That is incorrect. Your 21.6% is for inmates in local jails, not "inmates in USA."

Yes, you are correct.

A better reading of the Wikipedia page you provided, shows the following data:

Federal, 225,000 inmates, 7.90% (17,775) in for violent crime
State, 1,316,000, 52.40% (689,584) in for violent crime
Local, 785,556, 21.60% (169,680) in for violent crime
Total 2,326,556, 37.7% (877,039) in for violent crime

Thus, that gives us the answer for #1 and #2 of my requested stats:

1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders)

2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders)

3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers)

In theory, #1 and #2 need to equal 100%, and #3 needs to be less than #2 since #3 is a subset of #2.

#1 (violent offenders) is 37.7%.

#2 (non-violent offenders) is 62.3%

Do you know what #3 is?

We know it must be lower than #2 since it is a subset of #2.

I have much sympathy for that view. Unfortunately, there is no one to whom we can turn to govern us other than ourselves.

I eagerly agree if you remove the word "unfortunately".

In line with my topic, My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom, I would phrase your agreeable sentiment as this: Luckily, self-government (a.k.a. political freedom) exists as the antithesis to its horrible opposite.

Are you there equating "self-government" with anarchy?

I explain my answer to that question in reply to first comment on my post, Man is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom. Namely, it depends whether the word is used in the original Proudhonian sense or not.

I don't think I've ever met a person, including elected officials themselves, who doesn't think money (most notably in the form of campaign contributions) has way too much influence in the political system in the USA. I mean that with utmost respect. I am eager to learn about new different viewpoints.

I think its influence is nil. Which is not to say it irrelevant. Money is necessary to put one's message before voters. It has nothing to do with how voters respond to those messages.

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, to what degree do you think the average elected member of Congress is influenced by special interests through any financial mechanism such as but not limited to paid lobbying, campaign contributions, kickbacks, or bribes?

Answered above.

So your answer is 0?

On a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, in terms of honesty and immunity to self-serving greed, how fit do you think average currently serving member of Congress is to fill the aforementioned role of benevolent dictator?

No person is fit for that role.

Let me rephrase then, on a scale of 0-10, 10 being the most, in terms of honesty and immunity to self-serving greed, how do you rate the average member of Congress?

Also, if money plays only a minor role in politics, then why is so much money (literally $10+ billion per year in the USA alone) spent on it? Are the campaign financiers just foolishly wasting their money? For example, is every company on this list just stupid? Or are the billions they spend to manipulate the system each year worth it?

I never said money "plays only a minor role" in politics.

The word you used above is "nil", which I would take as less than minor actually.

And I couldn't disagree more. But I respect your right to see the world completely and utterly differently than I do.

Nonetheless, I believe money plays a huge role in determining who gets elected and who gets excluded from being elected. I believe the billions of dollars collectively spent by companies like Facebook, Amazon, Comcast, and Lockheed Martin on lobbying is not wasted; I believe they are getting their money's worth.

I take the answer to the latter to also be obvious --- as long as there are persons who victimize others, then some means of removing those persons from the society will be needed.

I agree. Thus, I support forcefully putting people who have some kind of psychological abnormality making them significantly more prone to committing victimization (e.g. serial killers, violent schizophrenics, etc.) into humane mental health asylums where they get humane medical treatment within reason, even if for many it is comfort measures only until they comfortably die from old age. As for the question in the OP, I do not include such humane mental health institutionalization under the label 'prisons'.

There are many more types of "victimizers" than serial killers and "violent schizophrenics."

Of course, that's why I wrote "e.g." meaning for example. They are two examples of countless, not an exhaustive list.

Due to the logical law of the excluded middle, it is necessarily the case that a given person either is (1) significantly abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization or is (2) not abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization.

One thing I believe that you and I both want is to protect people from non-defensive violence and victimization.

Prisons are not needed for that.

What are your alternatives?

Alternatives for what?

Excluding everyone who is abnormal in a way that makes them significantly more likely to commit non-defensive violence or non-defensive victimization, who do you want to be put in prison?

In other words, when considering the following two groups, who from group #2 do you want put in prison:

(1) people who are significantly abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization or is
(2) people who are not abnormally psychologically more likely to commit violence or non-defensive victimization

?

What possible benefit is there in putting someone from group #2 in prison?

[Steve3007]

One little tangential contribution I have to this topic for now:

I am strongly opposed to the idea that one of the purposes of prison is to inflict mental or physical torture on the inmates. Prisoners like those in the "Supermax" prison in Colorado, USA, are made to spend their entire remaining lives isolated from contact with other humans in a small cell, from which they're allowed out for solitary exercise one hour per day. I think that's an example of extreme mental torture. I oppose it regardless of the crime committed.

[Steve3007]

Regarding the release of prisoners and the risk of recidivism, I'm in favour of looking at ways of trying to use technology more effectively in order to reduce the prison population in countries where it is very high, while keeping the population as safe as possible.

Research seems to suggest that increasing the prison population doesn't reduce the incidence of crime. Countries with higher per-head prison populations don't generally have lower crime rates. It costs a lot of money, keeps offenders in counterproductive environments and its most tangible positive effect is simply that it physically stops the offenders from re-offending while in prison. So if the ability/opportunity to re-offend can be significantly reduced while keeping the offender out of prison, using technology, then that seems to me a good thing. Electronic ankle tags were a start. How about expanding that general concept with the imaginative use of technology to ensure that the offender's movements are automatically and minutely tracked.

[Steve3007]

I think an advantage of the above, if it can be achieved, is that it addresses (at least to some extent) the problem of trying to work out whether an offender is likely to re-offend when released from prison. That's currently done by crude methods employed by parole boards and is not very reliable, as mentioned earlier in this topic. But if an offender has been released then he is back in the environment in which it's possible to attempt to commit crimes, so the likelihood of attempted recidivism can be tested in a real world scenario, rather than simply being speculated on from his behaviour in prison.

Ideally, the technology would allow the released offender the freedom to make choices in life, but if he chose to go back to crime it would alert the authorities before the crime has actually been committed.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Steve3007, I agree that research seems to suggest that increasing the prison population doesn't reduce the incidence of violent crime. In fact, increased imprisonment may increase rates of violent crime. For instance, I think there is strong statistical evidence to argue convincingly that alcohol prohibition in the USA increased violent crime and that the ongoing expensive War on Drugs increased violent crime.

I agree with your sentiment overall in your preceding three posts, so please forgive the way I reply below.

Regarding the release of prisoners and the risk of recidivism, I'm in favour of looking at ways of trying to use technology more effectively... if the ability/opportunity to re-offend can be significantly reduced while keeping the offender out of prison, using technology, then that seems to me a good thing.

I hope many offenders re-offend, such as people in jail for marijuana possession. I hope they get out and smoke a joint to celebrate their release. Re-offense is often a good thing, in my opinion, since so many good things are illegal.

For example, Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. I am glad it was 29 rather than 1. I am glad he re-offended, over and over. Recidivism is often a very good thing.

Arnold Abbott is another example of someone I am glad repeatedly re-offended.

[LuckyR]

Speaking of technology, what should be the punishment for someone who steals your identity and ruins your credit and good name?

[Pattern-chaser]

I hope many offenders re-offend, such as people in jail for marijuana possession. I hope they get out and smoke a joint to celebrate their release. Re-offense is often a good thing, in my opinion, since so many good things are illegal.

I take your meaning to be that you would like to be made aware of unjust laws, but is it reasonable to expect your fellow citizens to go to barbaric American prisons to highlight these injustices for you? After all, if the law is unjust, then these inmates shouldn't be there, should they? Aren't they, the ones unjustly imprisoned, the priority in this case?

[Steve3007]

I hope many offenders re-offend, such as people in jail for marijuana possession. I hope they get out and smoke a joint to celebrate their release. Re-offense is often a good thing, in my opinion, since so many good things are illegal...

Fair enough. There are some things which are illegal but which shouldn't be illegal. I don't disagree but I don't see it is relevant to my point. I was talking about offences involving crimes that we agree are rightfully considered to be crimes.