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

[LuckyR]

perhaps if we lived in a society where everything was free [anarchism], then there would be no need to steel. or if everyone had enough to be satisfied ~ but don't we all want more even though compared to poorer nations we may already have enough? an old friend of mine, would probably sit upon a mountain of stuff and decalre that it is all his.

i think education [esp, about causality on the social level] is key, but that needs to include rudimentary philosophy, and wisdom. people need to be taught about disire and many of the things spoken of here, and in english - so to say, such that children can understand.

Nice thought experiment, but the reality is there will always be resentment. Even if it's for the affection of the pretty girl at the pub. Thus everyone will not have access to something (or someone). Some will always try to "remedy" the situation through violent means. What do you want to do with those folks, if not prison? Simple question... yet observe the linguistic gymnastics to try to avoid answering the question.

I take it that Lucky's objection generally is about power. Amorphos is right to the extent that education increases the range of choice as to how a person can obtain and exert power; more choice means fewer people choose violence as some will choose other maybe legal means of extortion, and others will have learned more mature strategies such as increase in knowledge or earnings. A political strategy of social mobility, which is facilitated by education, will remedy much of the frustration of not getting the prettiest girl in the room. The net result of education and social mobility is reduction in the need for preventive imprisonment.

This take reminds of Bill Clinton's (very popular at the time) comment on abortion: it should be safe, legal... and RARE. Same with prison, work hard to address the causes of crime... and have prisons for the RARE violent criminal (in that scenario).

[Belindi]

perhaps if we lived in a society where everything was free [anarchism], then there would be no need to steel. or if everyone had enough to be satisfied ~ but don't we all want more even though compared to poorer nations we may already have enough? an old friend of mine, would probably sit upon a mountain of stuff and decalre that it is all his.

i think education [esp, about causality on the social level] is key, but that needs to include rudimentary philosophy, and wisdom. people need to be taught about disire and many of the things spoken of here, and in english - so to say, such that children can understand.

Nice thought experiment, but the reality is there will always be resentment. Even if it's for the affection of the pretty girl at the pub. Thus everyone will not have access to something (or someone). Some will always try to "remedy" the situation through violent means. What do you want to do with those folks, if not prison? Simple question... yet observe the linguistic gymnastics to try to avoid answering the question.

I take it that Lucky's objection generally is about power. Amorphos is right to the extent that education increases the range of choice as to how a person can obtain and exert power; more choice means fewer people choose violence as some will choose other maybe legal means of extortion, and others will have learned more mature strategies such as increase in knowledge or earnings. A political strategy of social mobility, which is facilitated by education, will remedy much of the frustration of not getting the prettiest girl in the room. The net result of education and social mobility is reduction in the need for preventive imprisonment.

This take reminds of Bill Clinton's (very popular at the time) comment on abortion: it should be safe, legal... and RARE. Same with prison, work hard to address the causes of crime... and have prisons for the RARE violent criminal (in that scenario).

Yes, is is like that. Tough on the causes of crime.

[Onyinyechi]

Society does need things like a prison. Man's greatest achievement was rule of law. This is the only hope of the common man. If there are no prisons then there shouldn't be a law.

[LuckyR]

Society does need things like a prison. Man's greatest achievement was rule of law. This is the only hope of the common man. If there are no prisons then there shouldn't be a law.

Society NEEDS punishment and has decided that it prefers prisons to the alternatives.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

Okay. How about rapists and murderers who have already completed the deed illegally? Prison, yes or no?

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you are asking me. Can you clarify and/or rephrase the question?

To be clear, I have never put a person in prison in my life.

I've never built a prison. I've never worked at prison. I've never driven someone to a prison. I've never visited a prison. I don't own a prison.

I wouldn't bet on the truth of any of the above sentences changing in the future (e.g. I wouldn't bet on me becoming a prison guard or such in the future).

I've been an inmate in jail several times, and that's the closest I've even come to being at or near a prison, let alone putting someone else there.

Your OP dealt with 1) nonviolent criminals, 2) those forced into a life of crime due to extreme situations (such as poverty) and 3) the "mentally ill". Are career criminals in one of those groups?

Statistically, in the USA, I would assume most "career criminals" fall into category #1.

Granted, it might depend on what you mean by "career criminal" exactly. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Was he a career criminal as you use the term?

Assuming I ever decide to buy weed in places its illegal or buy a Cuban cigar, would the hypothetical ( ) people from whom I might buy weed or Cuban cigars be "career criminals"?

Is a prostitute a "career criminal"?

What about a porn star in a country where porn is illegal? Is a porn start in a country where porn is illegal a "career criminal"?

These are not rhetorical questions. The answers would enable me to understand what is meant by the phrase "career criminal" exactly, so that I can understand and thus answer questions that involve that term.

Hhmmm, interesting... There is a status quo. Everyone on the thread feels comfortable critiquing the status quo, despite their inexperience in the area in question. Yet some excuse themselves from coming up with an alternative to the previously criticized status quo due to inexperience in said area. OK.

Am I "criticizing the status quo"? What does that mean? What does it mean to "criticize the status quo"?

As you use terms, is there a difference between (1) stating a plain simple objective fact (e.g. "Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.", "most inmates in the USA are only charged with non-violent crimes like marijuana possession") versus (2) "criticizing the status quo"?

One who dislike or resents a factual truth (e.g. "Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.") might be prone to mistaking the speaking of that objective descriptive truth as a prescriptive criticism, but that would be to project's one's own feelings onto the interlocutor, and thus also to read between the lines, so to speak.

As I explain in detail in my book, In It Together, I strictly practice the principle of honestly, fully, and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot control.

For example, I am a vegetarian, but I don't see a lion eating an antelope or a human cannibal eating a human and say, "They shouldn't do that! Reality would be superior if they did not do that! But, as it is, the status quo sucks and is bad and evil and inferior to the glorious better reality that could be if only things out my control were different!" I'd never say things like that, if that's remotely what you mean to accuse me (and "everyone on this thread") of.

Granted, people who don't share my inner peace will often falsely project judgementalism or resentment or moralizing onto me or what I say. Reading between the lines leads to misunderstanding, but it is very common even with in-person interactions, as addressed in my topic, Perception is almost entirely a matter of projection, and my topic, We see what we want to see, meaning what we choose to see.

I'll try again: what in your opinion is a superior resolution to a case of a convicted rapist than prison?

I'm sorry; I still don't understand the question. Can you re-phrase and/or elaborate?

What do you mean by "superior"?



Thank you,
Scott

[LuckyR]

Title- Does Society Need Prisons?

Status quo- Society currently makes use of prisons.

Data point- MLK, an example of someone who was counter to the power structure in his own time and thus was arrested dozens of times AND is currently revered and a darling of the power structure and society in general, is trotted out to lend credence to the (admittedly implied) title proposal that society can abolish prisons.

Implied alternative- Society without prisons.

My ask- What takes the place of prisons in the implied alternative state? Not just for the low hanging fruit (victimless crime, nonviolent crime, crimes that shouldn't even be crimes), but for violent criminals?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

If this is what you believe, then your opinion of human nature is unrealistically optimistic.
I am sufficiently pessimistic to believe most people will not pay [...]

The opposite is the case. I am extremely cynical. I am a loving all-forgiving cynic, but I am a realistic cynic nonetheless.

I don't care how much the aggressively violent person claims to be a well-intentioned utilitarian or benevolent dictator (or worse a mob of humans acting together as a multi-person benevolent dictator)... I don't care how much they claim they are acting "for the greater good" or such or claim their allegedly glorious ends would 'justify' their aggressively violent means (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.)... I don't trust any human to wield the power of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), not individually, and even moreso not in mobs or groups. It's precisely because I'm realistically cynical that I don't buy it into the dangerous violent pipe dream. I explain that in more detail in the following topic of mine:

Man is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government...


To a degree, I understand the impulse you may have to go put a gun to someone's head and order him to donate to a charity you like. To a degree, I understand the impulse you might have to go commit a violent robbery at a bank so that you can then donate the profits to a particular charity you like. If it was me, I'd probably donate the violently robbed money to a charity that feeds starving children in the third-world, except--and this is a big except--I would never ever use such non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery) as the means to that end, to any end. And, shall I find myself in that bank where the charity-loving bank robbers takes his gun and starts threatening to murder people, I would if needed use defensive lethal force to kill the violent murderous bank robber and protect his would-be victims from the murderous non-defensive violence that he uses to fund charities he loves.

Would your system of nobody going to prison include ,not only prostitutes, civil liberties fighters, and people who use recreational drugs, (which I support) but also extremely rich people who refuse to pay taxes into the public purse of the nation that feeds and shelters them?

If I had the power to put anyone in prison for life and for some reason had to put a certain number of people in prison for life, I would put the charity-loving person who violently robs peaceful rich people in prison before I would put the rich people in prison.

So, again, while to a degree I understand and sympathize with the urge to violently rob rich people so that you can donate the profits from the robbery to a wonderful charity (e.g. cancer research or feeding starving kids), I would imprison you as a violent robber long before I would imprison a rich person for refusing to donate to charity.

More realistically, I would presumably never imprison anyone under any circumstances.

In some circumstances, I would help bring abnormally violent people to hospitals to have them committed to the psychiatric ward or such.

In some circumstance, I would use lethal defense force against someone committing non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, violent robbery, etc.). For example, if a murderer came to my house and attempted to murder my kids or I, there is a good chance I would kill the murderer or before he could do the murder.

Would the society exert any sort of quid pro quo for not contributing to the public purse?

Despite the wording in the titular question (which I wrote 15 years ago), I can't really make sense of sentences that personify 'society' to that degree. It seems usually to be a case of Fallacy of Personification to me, as I explain in my topic, Groups, Consciousness, and Consent | Common Fallacies.

For instance, if a very rich non-criminal man became a pauper and was starving, would the nation feed him only if he had been a tax payer or contributed to national insurance?

If I stop paying my car insurance, the car insurance will discontinue my coverage, and then if my car gets destroyed, and I ask them to buy me a new car, they will then refuse. I have no problem with that, and it makes perfect sense to me. Nothing that in that interaction between me and the insurance company was violent or coercive. No violent robbery occurred.

Typically, I don't call it a "tax" if it is voluntary and non-violent. Philosophically, as a matter of semantics, I only call it a "tax" if it is legal violent robbery. For more on that, please see my topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?

For example, I once lived in a large apartment complex with private roads, private garages, and over 100 apartments and a community pool and community fitness center. Keep in mind, at that time, I was working for below minimum wage as a bartender, making a significantly below average income for someone in the USA, really kind of poor by American standards, considering I had two kids to feed and such. That kind of large private community is more common for lower income people in this country than higher ones. (Rich people own the whole house/complex, and don't tend to share their pools and fitness centers with a 100+ neighbors.) Consistent with the signed contract lease agreement we had to sign to move in, the apartment complex added fees to our rent, some monthly, some annually, to cover the cost of the pool, fitness center, and the water access we had. For example, if one of my neighbors used twice as much water as me, we would still both pay the same total amount for the water, meaning in a way I would get slightly ripped off by that exchange, because the apartment complex just average the total water usage across all people rather than somehow measure each apartment's individual usage. Refusing to pay for my share of the water, pool, or fitness center fees was not an option, per the written signed lease agreement that I signed before moving in. None of that was violent, coercive, or non-consensual. They didn't call the rent or fees "taxes", and I wouldn't call the rent or fees "taxes"; they weren't taxes because they were consensual.


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

As you use terms, is there a difference between (1) stating a plain simple objective fact (e.g. "Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.", "most inmates in the USA are only charged with non-violent crimes like marijuana possession") versus (2) "criticizing the status quo"?

One who dislike or resents a factual truth (e.g. "Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.") might be prone to mistaking the speaking of that objective descriptive truth as a prescriptive criticism, but that would be to project's one's own feelings onto the interlocutor, and thus also to read between the lines, so to speak.

As I explain in detail in my book, In It Together, I strictly practice the principle of honestly, fully, and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot control.

For example, I am a vegetarian, but I don't see a lion eating an antelope or a human cannibal eating a human and say, "They shouldn't do that! Reality would be superior if they did not do that! But, as it is, the status quo sucks and is bad and evil and inferior to the glorious better reality that could be if only things out my control were different!" I'd never say things like that, if that's remotely what you mean to accuse me (and "everyone on this thread") of.

Granted, people who don't share my inner peace will often falsely project judgementalism or resentment or moralizing onto me or what I say. Reading between the lines leads to misunderstanding, but it is very common even with in-person interactions, as addressed in my topic, Perception is almost entirely a matter of projection, and my topic, We see what we want to see, meaning what we choose to see.

Implied alternative- Society without prisons.

[Emphasis added.]

Claiming there is an implication is covered by what I mean when I refer to reading between the lines. If I ask ABC, and you think ABC entails or implies XYZ, please don't assume I mean or also mean XYZ, and please don't assume I believe XYZ. Instead, simply ask, "Do you believe XYZ?" Rephrasing what someone else says, as you understand it in your own words, as a question is a powerful communication tool to achieve mutual understanding. In contrast, assuming does the opposite.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the 5-word sentence fragment quoted above, perhaps since it is not a full sentence, but if I had to bet one way or the other I doubt I am implying whatever it is you are accusing me of implying, if that itself is even what's going on.

My ask- What takes the place of prisons in the implied alternative state?

I'm not sure what you mean by "implied alternative state".

In part, I think I'm most thrown off by the singularity of it, meaning that you use the singular rather than the plural.

Surely, insofar as there is an alternative state, then there is many alternative states; right?

If there is other worlds, then there isn't just one other world; right?

Not just for the low hanging fruit (victimless crime, nonviolent crime, crimes that shouldn't even be crimes), but for violent criminals?

I don't know what you mean by "crimes that shouldn't even be crimes". I've never said such a phrase in my life.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "low hanging fruit" since you seem to use it to refer to the vast majority of crimes and criminals. It seems possibly contradictory to refer to the vast majority as "low", since "low" would typically roughly mean in the bottom half, as in below average. It's impossible for vast majority to below average.

In any case, it sounds like you are asking about a teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.). Is that correct?

If so, I'm still not sure what you are asking about in regard to that specific teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.).

With enough detail about a hypothetical situation, I can tell you what I would do in any given situation. In many cases, if a murderer was attempting to murder my kids or I, I would kill the murderer before he could do the murder.

In other cases, per what I wrote in the OP, I would beat unconscious and help drag a person who is violently crazy to the hospital to have them committed. That would be particularly relevant in any case where someone has some kind of psychological, behavioral, and/or personality-related abnormality that makes them abnormally prone to committing aggressive violence against others as compared to the average person.

In other cases, I would mind my own business and stay out of it, similar to how most people generally treat the issue of 10,000 kids starving to death each and every day. "Do 10,000 kids need to starve to death everyday?" It's a question 2008 Scott might ask, at least.

There is a chapter in my book entitled "A World of Problems", and that chapter and the ones after it help explain this better than a million posts on the Philosophy Forums could, but for me to see a lot of problems in the outer world and want to fix them all, or come up with a plan that would fix them all only if one could force everyone else in the world to follow the plan, would be it seems for me to have a form of a god complex. Such a thing would be inconsistent with my inner peace.

I'm not in the business of that kind of world building. I describe (and love) the world we actually have, and make my choices within it. I accept the cards I'm actually dealt, and simply do my best to play those cards according to the way I want them played.

Most people in prison are non-violent, and the small fraction of unusually abnormally aggressive violent people you ask about typically do their violence legally. Prisons are one of their tools. Legally executing peaceful homosexuals is another. What they do is something I would never do, so I don't need an alternative way to do it.

If you want to do things like tax pacifists and put them in prison if they refuse to pay you, then indeed you will need prisons to do that.

If you think things like the legal jailing of Martin Luther King and the legal democratic execution of peaceful gays are consensual, then I imagine you will need prisons to act on those beliefs and to get done whatever it is you want to get done.

In contrast, I don't have any desire to do anything that requires prisons to be done. I don't need alternative means to get those ends accomplished because I have no desire to or intention of working towards those ends.


Thank you,
Scott

[LuckyR]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

As you use terms, is there a difference between (1) stating a plain simple objective fact (e.g. "Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.", "most inmates in the USA are only charged with non-violent crimes like marijuana possession") versus (2) "criticizing the status quo"?

One who dislike or resents a factual truth (e.g. "Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times.") might be prone to mistaking the speaking of that objective descriptive truth as a prescriptive criticism, but that would be to project's one's own feelings onto the interlocutor, and thus also to read between the lines, so to speak.

As I explain in detail in my book, In It Together, I strictly practice the principle of honestly, fully, and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot control.

For example, I am a vegetarian, but I don't see a lion eating an antelope or a human cannibal eating a human and say, "They shouldn't do that! Reality would be superior if they did not do that! But, as it is, the status quo sucks and is bad and evil and inferior to the glorious better reality that could be if only things out my control were different!" I'd never say things like that, if that's remotely what you mean to accuse me (and "everyone on this thread") of.

Granted, people who don't share my inner peace will often falsely project judgementalism or resentment or moralizing onto me or what I say. Reading between the lines leads to misunderstanding, but it is very common even with in-person interactions, as addressed in my topic, Perception is almost entirely a matter of projection, and my topic, We see what we want to see, meaning what we choose to see.

Implied alternative- Society without prisons.

[Emphasis added.]

Claiming there is an implication is covered by what I mean when I refer to reading between the lines. If I ask ABC, and you think ABC entails or implies XYZ, please don't assume I mean or also mean XYZ, and please don't assume I believe XYZ. Instead, simply ask, "Do you believe XYZ?" Rephrasing what someone else says, as you understand it in your own words, as a question is a powerful communication tool to achieve mutual understanding. In contrast, assuming does the opposite.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the 5-word sentence fragment quoted above, perhaps since it is not a full sentence, but if I had to bet one way or the other I doubt I am implying whatever it is you are accusing me of implying, if that itself is even what's going on.

My ask- What takes the place of prisons in the implied alternative state?

I'm not sure what you mean by "implied alternative state".

In part, I think I'm most thrown off by the singularity of it, meaning that you use the singular rather than the plural.

Surely, insofar as there is an alternative state, then there is many alternative states; right?

If there is other worlds, then there isn't just one other world; right?

Not just for the low hanging fruit (victimless crime, nonviolent crime, crimes that shouldn't even be crimes), but for violent criminals?

I don't know what you mean by "crimes that shouldn't even be crimes". I've never said such a phrase in my life.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "low hanging fruit" since you seem to use it to refer to the vast majority of crimes and criminals. It seems possibly contradictory to refer to the vast majority as "low", since "low" would typically roughly mean in the bottom half, as in below average. It's impossible for vast majority to below average.

In any case, it sounds like you are asking about a teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.). Is that correct?

If so, I'm still not sure what you are asking about in regard to that specific teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.).

With enough detail about a hypothetical situation, I can tell you what I would do in any given situation. In many cases, if a murderer was attempting to murder my kids or I, I would kill the murderer before he could do the murder.

In other cases, per what I wrote in the OP, I would beat unconscious and help drag a person who is violently crazy to the hospital to have them committed. That would be particularly relevant in any case where someone has some kind of psychological, behavioral, and/or personality-related abnormality that makes them abnormally prone to committing aggressive violence against others as compared to the average person.

In other cases, I would mind my own business and stay out of it, similar to how most people generally treat the issue of 10,000 kids starving to death each and every day. "Do 10,000 kids need to starve to death everyday?" It's a question 2008 Scott might ask, at least.

There is a chapter in my book entitled "A World of Problems", and that chapter and the ones after it help explain this better than a million posts on the Philosophy Forums could, but for me to see a lot of problems in the outer world and want to fix them all, or come up with a plan that would fix them all only if one could force everyone else in the world to follow the plan, would be it seems for me to have a form of a god complex. Such a thing would be inconsistent with my inner peace.

I'm not in the business of that kind of world building. I describe (and love) the world we actually have, and make my choices within it. I accept the cards I'm actually dealt, and simply do my best to play those cards according to the way I want them played.

Most people in prison are non-violent, and the small fraction of unusually abnormally aggressive violent people you ask about typically do their violence legally. Prisons are one of their tools. Legally executing peaceful homosexuals is another. What they do is something I would never do, so I don't need an alternative way to do it.

If you want to do things like tax pacifists and put them in prison if they refuse to pay you, then indeed you will need prisons to do that.

If you think things like the legal jailing of Martin Luther King and the legal democratic execution of peaceful gays are consensual, then I imagine you will need prisons to act on those beliefs and to get done whatever it is you want to get done.

In contrast, I don't have any desire to do anything that requires prisons to be done. I don't need alternative means to get those ends accomplished because I have no desire to or intention of working towards those ends.


Thank you,
Scott

Several observations:

I have come to the (new) conclusion that you are being completely honest and my particular syntactical style (perhaps because of the lack of nonverbal communication in this format) is particularly non-communicative between me and you.

Having said that I seem to not have that issue with others here, but it is what it is.

Crimes that should not be crimes are your example of homosexuality as a crime.

I appreciate your optimism that you have a high chance of preventing harm to yourself and your family through your use of lethal force. That has not proven to be very statistically effective for others.

As to whether violent offenders are common or a "teeny tiny" percentage, most sources put them as 7% of federal prisoners, but over 60% of state prisoners, or about 40% of all US prisoners.

I agree with you that those who commit violent crimes might benefit from forced incarceration in mental institutions instead of prison, though the evidence of improved outcome in criminals without a diagnosis is lacking, though I concede it might. Personally, incarcerated in a holding area or a treatment facility are acceptable to me.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, LuckyR,

Thank you for your reply!

Not just for the low hanging fruit (victimless crime, nonviolent crime, crimes that shouldn't even be crimes), but for violent criminals?

I don't know what you mean by "crimes that shouldn't even be crimes". I've never said such a phrase in my life.

Crimes that should not be crimes are your example of homosexuality as a crime.

I still don't understand what you mean by "crimes that should not be crimes". Giving one example (the illegality of homosexuality) does not help me understand at all. Can you define what you mean by it more precisely, not just with examples? Namely, what do you mean by "should"?

As I would use the terms, I don't believe there are any crimes that 'should' not be crimes. I likewise don't believe there any crimes that 'should' be crimes. For the reasons explained in agreeable detail in my book, In It Together, there are no shoulds' in my philosophy, in large part because I have consistent inner peace (a.k.a. "true happiness") and practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting what I cannot control.

In any case, it sounds like you are asking about a teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.). Is that correct?

If so, I'm still not sure what you are asking about in regard to that specific teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.).

With enough detail about a hypothetical situation, I can tell you what I would do in any given situation. In many cases, if a murderer was attempting to murder my kids or I, I would kill the murderer before he could do the murder.

In other cases, per what I wrote in the OP, I would beat unconscious and help drag a person who is violently crazy to the hospital to have them committed.

I appreciate your optimism that you have a high chance of preventing harm to yourself and your family through your use of lethal force.

The above sentence appears to represent a drastic misunderstanding. As best I can tell, I never said anything remotely like that. In fact, quite the opposite represents my beliefs: I wouldn't be that surprised if I end up like Breonna Taylor, or the many gay people who have been legally murdered in this world.

Perhaps the misunderstanding was due in part to me attempting to answer a question I did not understand. Sorry for the confusion.

I was simply giving random examples of things I'd be willing to do in various circumstances if those circumstances came up, not saying it's statistically likely that it would come up.

By the phrase "in many cases", I was commenting on the likelihood I would choose to fight a murderer, not the likelihood I would win the fight. (That's one reason I included my kids because while I'd often kill a murderer to save myself if I was sure I'd succeed in my attempt to kill, I'd also be more likely to take the coward's way out if was just me I'd be defending and I wasn't confident I would win the fight. In contrast, to protect my kids from a murderer or rapist, I'd be a lot more likely to choose to fight a fight to the death even knowing I'd probably lose. If there's 1% chance I'd win and kill the murderer thereby saving my kids, and a 99% chance I'd die when I could choose to live but sacrifice my kids, I would choose the 1% option.) In short, it was a comment on the likelihood I would fight and do my best to kill the murderer, not a comment on whether I would win the fight and succeed at killing the murderer.

Not just for the low hanging fruit (victimless crime, nonviolent crime, crimes that shouldn't even be crimes), but for violent criminals?

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "low hanging fruit" since you seem to use it to refer to the vast majority of crimes and criminals. It seems possibly contradictory to refer to the vast majority as "low", since "low" would typically roughly mean in the bottom half, as in below average. It's impossible for vast majority to below average.

In any case, it sounds like you are asking about a teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.). Is that correct?

If so, I'm still not sure what you are asking about in regard to that specific teeny tiny fraction of criminals (e.g. convicted murders, convicted rapists, etc.).

As to whether violent offenders are common or a "teeny tiny" percentage, most sources put them as [...] or 40% of all US prisoners

40% is a minority, so at least we agree that the majority of prisoners are only charged with non-violent crimes.

However, the categories "offenders" (i.e. criminals) versus the category "prisoners" are two completely different categories. I was responding to a question you asked about "violent criminals" not "current prisoners in the USA". Most criminals that get arrested in the USA don't end up in prison.

If we aren't precise, it leads to misunderstandings and confusion. If you mean "violent criminals", you don't want to just say "criminals" because most criminals are non-violent. If you mean "violent victimizers" you don't want to say "violent criminals" because most violent victimizers do their violence legally. If you mean "prisoners" you don't want to say "criminals" because most criminals, even most arrested criminals, are not in prison. If you ask me a question, I will reply to what you say, not what you mean. If you say "criminals", I'll assume you are talking about mostly non-violent people like Martin Luther King.

In terms of my OP, I definitely think the kind of criminals that fall in category 3 of the 3 listed are indeed a teeny tiny percentage of criminals in the USA, and so too in almost all jurisdictions throughout the world both now and historically. Many violent criminals are actually in category 2 of 3, not 3 of 3, from the OP.

Nonetheless, can you provide the links to your specific source(s) for that statistic, meaning the 40% of all US prisoners being violent?

I ask because I am interested in the definition and criteria used for "violent criminal".

For example, an otherwise very peaceful gay person in Uganda who resists arrest and execution would then probably be considered a "violent criminal".

A woman who defended herself by physically resisting legal marital rape would herself be a "violent criminal".

If Martin Luther King had resisted arrest 1 of the 29 times he was arrested, he would have been deemed a "violent criminal".

In fact, depending on how he was charged, he may have been categorized as a "violent criminal", since sometimes things like the kind of protesting Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks did get qualified as violent criminality by their arresters.

There's a big difference to me in how I will answer your questions if you are talking about (1) people who merely engage in defensive and/or consensual 'violence' versus (2) people who engage in non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.).

To illustrate that big difference, consider how much less so-called "violent criminals" might be in prison if the war on drugs was ended. Offensive violence begets defensive violence, and initiating aggressive violence begets more violence. It's easy to start a fight or war and then call the other defending side violent, and it's not technically incorrect. Those who use violence to defend themselves from a violent aggressor are therefore also violent.

John Brown was a violent criminal. The Boston Tea Partiers were violent criminals. Any Germans who fought back against the Nazis were violent criminals, even if they didn't fight back until they were already being arrested for some non-violent crime.

In 2019, police in the USA arrested 545,602 people for marijuana alone. That's over half a million, just for marijuana. That's not even most of the non-violent people arrested. That's just for little crime of marijuana. There are many other victimless crimes that people are arrested for than just that one.

So, yes, definitely, violent criminals (e.g. rapists, murderers, etc.) are a teeny tiny fraction of criminals, even if we only consider arrested criminals. It gets even more extreme of a teeny tiny minority if we consider all the criminals police don't bother arresting because the criminal isn't black enough or poor enough or something. And it gets to be even more of a teeny tiny fraction if we exclude violent criminals who (like me) only use consensual or defensive force but don't ever intentionally engage in non-consensual non-defensive violence.

Personally, [having people abnormally prone to committing severe non-defensive violence including rapists and serial killers] incarcerated in a holding area or a treatment facility are acceptable to me.

To me too.

Granted, it's mostly moot since they represent such a teeny tiny fraction of criminals.




Thank you,
Scott

[LuckyR]

There are many sources of data on prisoners (the primary subject matter of a thread on prisons, I might add). Take for example ProCon.org

Their latest data from 2020 is typical: out of 1.04 million state prisoners about 650,000 are for violent crimes, murder, rape, aggravated and simple assault, robbery and negligent manslaughter. There are about 140 thousand federal prisoners and about 10 thousand are for violent crimes, murder, robbery and sexual abuse. So combining the two, out of 1.18 million about 660 thousand would be in for violent crimes, so about 56% of total US prisoners would be in for violent crimes using that data set. Didn't see resisting arrest, sorry. MLK need not apply.

[Belindi]

Scott wrote:

If I stop paying my car insurance, the car insurance will discontinue my coverage, and then if my car gets destroyed, and I ask them to buy me a new car, they will then refuse. I have no problem with that, and it makes perfect sense to me. Nothing that in that interaction between me and the insurance company was violent or coercive. No violent robbery occurred.

Typically, I don't call it a "tax" if it is voluntary and non-violent. Philosophically, as a matter of semantics, I only call it a "tax" if it is legal violent robbery.

But there are always going to be foolish people who don't buy insurance, not only for luxuries like cars,but for health care, food, and shelter. Are the people who have foresight and insure themselves going to let the idiots go to hell? Or are the people who have spent their money wisely (on insurance premiums) expected to empathise with the careless idiots who lacked foresight?
From my point of view there are always going to be idiots in any society, and if the sum of individuals is more than simply an aggregate but is a society of individuals then the idiots will be cared for.
The more able ones will carry the weight of the non-productive ones.
This is the same theme as the Biblical wise and foolish virgins story. The parables as civilising influences were ahead of their times. Welfare socialism IS a civilising influence. I mention the parables not as authorities but as pertinent to the history of ideas.

How welfare socialism is financed is another topic. What Scott calls violent robbery is taxation . It would be an extreme optimist who believed people would pay taxes from heartfelt generosity; heartfelt generosity may happen in families or when a Charles Dickens has put the case in the public conscience, but for huge societies people have to be coerced either by the superstition of a punishing and rewarding deity or by a secular state

[Pattern-chaser]

Society does need things like a prison. Man's greatest achievement was rule of law. This is the only hope of the common man. If there are no prisons then there shouldn't be a law.

You believe, then, that the only appropriate or effective response to breaking the law is imprisonment? What about fines? Community service? Counselling, or similar 'therapies'? Are none of these worth considering?

[Pattern-chaser]

I still don't understand what you mean by "crimes that should not be crimes". Giving one example (the illegality of homosexuality) does not help me understand at all. Can you define what you mean by it more precisely, not just with examples? Namely, what do you mean by "should"?

I'm sure the reference here is to laws that are unjust, or poorly-formed or -defined? Hence "crimes that should not be crimes" — acts that would not be criminal if the law was more appropriately formed.

[LuckyR]

Society does need things like a prison. Man's greatest achievement was rule of law. This is the only hope of the common man. If there are no prisons then there shouldn't be a law.

You believe, then, that the only appropriate or effective response to breaking the law is imprisonment? What about fines? Community service? Counselling, or similar 'therapies'? Are none of these worth considering?

Considering? Those are all part of the status quo. My understanding of this thread is that among the numerous options available currently in the criminal justice system, can the prison option be eliminated? While I certainly support shifting (drastically) the percentage of criminals in the prison system lower, I do not support shifting it to zero. You?