Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 3:49 pm

Robert66 wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 2:53 pm Chain gangs?

If the inmates' behavioral history warrants it.

Given the trajectory of recent times, it won't be long until prisons are completely privatised. And unless something drastic happens to the way these businesses are run, expect rehabilitation of inmates to become a thing of the past - put in the too hard, too expensive basket. So all the groundwork will be laid for a profit-making free for all, which will see a dramatic rise in private investigation aimed at uncovering previously hidden criminal behaviour. Of course the innocent, provided they really are squeaky clean (no more fudging the numbers on your tax return), will be ok, and it will be smiles all round for the shareholders, but I do question whether we will be better off* in this tougher-on-crime world.

*Silly me, using another old-fashioned notion like "we will be better off" when of course there will be no more "we".

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 4:02 pm
The question would be whether the previous assault-rifle ban yielded any decrease in death's...

The consensus on that is that the data is inconclusive:

"President Joe Biden claims the 10-year assault weapons ban that he helped shepherd through the Senate as part of the 1994 crime bill “brought down these mass killings.” But the raw numbers, when adjusted for population and other factors, aren’t so clear on that."

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/factc ... an-worked/

From Wikipedia entry:

"A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides. *

"In 2020, the RAND Corporation reviewed almost 13,000 studies related to gun violence and their support of 18 classes of gun policy. This included studies of the effect of assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans on mass shootings and violent crime. Of the studies determined to have sufficient methodological rigor for inclusion, four were found applicable to mass shootings and two applicable to violent crime. RAND concluded that there was "inconclusive evidence" for any effect of assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans on mass shootings and violent crime.

"A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.

"According to research done by the Violence Policy Center, in 2016 one in four law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty were killed by an assault weapon. A 2018 study examined the types of crime guns recovered by law enforcement in ten different cities and found that assault weapons and semiautomatic guns outfitted with large capacity magazines generally accounted for between 22 to 36% of crime guns recovered by police.

"A 2015 study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law's impact on public mass shootings. Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities. Gius found that while assault weapons were not the primary weapon used in this subset of mass shootings, fatalities and injuries were statistically lower during the period the federal ban was active. The 2018 Rand analysis noted that the federal law portion of this analysis lacked a comparison group.

"A 2015 study found a small decrease in the rate of mass shootings followed by increases beginning after the ban was lifted.

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban. A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that 'There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives,' but added that 'a more stringent or longer-lasting ban might well have been more effective.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban

* The reduction in mass shootings during the period of the ban was part of the overall reduction in crime rates during that period, which casts doubt on the role of the ban in that broader decline.

Robert66 wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 5:52 pm
Given the trajectory of recent times, it won't be long until prisons are completely privatised. And unless something drastic happens to the way these businesses are run, expect rehabilitation of inmates to become a thing of the past - put in the too hard, too expensive basket.

That can't happen too soon. Inmate "rehabilitation," like "drug treatment" and "mental health treatment" are Pollyanna fantasies conjured up by bleeding-heart do-gooders and Christian soul-savers and eagerly embraced by the armies of social workers, counselors, and lawyers for whom it is a wonderful boondoggle.

77% of inmates released from state and federal prisons in any given year are re-arrested for new crimes within 9 years, about half in the first year after release, despite most of them having participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program. Those numbers are low, of course, because not all re-offenders are caught and re-arrested.

The purpose of a criminal justice system is 1) preventing or at least reducing crime, and 2) securing justice for its victims. It is NOT to "rehabilitate" anyone. The only effective means of accomplishing the former is removing criminals from the streets and keeping them off, and compelling them to make good on the damages they have caused.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 8:42 pm

Robert66 wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 5:52 pm
Given the trajectory of recent times, it won't be long until prisons are completely privatised. And unless something drastic happens to the way these businesses are run, expect rehabilitation of inmates to become a thing of the past - put in the too hard, too expensive basket.

That can't happen too soon. Inmate "rehabilitation," like "drug treatment" and "mental health treatment" are Pollyanna fantasies conjured up by bleeding-heart do-gooders and Christian soul-savers and eagerly embraced by the armies of social workers, counselors, and lawyers for whom it is a wonderful boondoggle.

77% of inmates released from state and federal prisons in any given year are re-arrested for new crimes within 9 years, about half in the first year after release, despite most of them having participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program. Those numbers are low, of course, because not all re-offenders are caught and re-arrested.

The purpose of a criminal justice system is 1) preventing or at least reducing crime, and 2) securing justice for its victims. It is NOT to "rehabilitate" anyone. The only effective means of accomplishing the former is removing criminals from the streets and keeping them off, and compelling them to make good on the damages they have caused.

AGREED - BUT MAYBE THERE IS A BETTER WAY

How Some European Prisons Are Based on Dignity Instead of Dehumanization

Prisons in Northern Europe are actually supportive, and they see lower rates of violence and recidivism.

Our delegation was surprised not only by the physical aspects of the place — open, well-lit, and bright, with lots of green spaces — but also the high degree to which the conditions of confinement were organized around the normalization principle, which recognizes the inherent harms of incarceration and requires that life in prison approximate the positive aspects of life in the community. Under this principle, punishment is restricted to the separation from society mandated by the custodial sentence itself. Conditions of confinement should themselves be neither punitive nor onerous. Instead, the aim of the incarceration experience is to enable smooth reintegration of people upon release and to lead a life of social responsibility.

Discipline is very finely graded and disciplinary measures are closely tied to violations. Least restrictive sanctions are preferred, such as reprimands, brief restrictions on money, property, movement or leisure activities, or delays in scheduled home leave. Punitive solitary confinement is almost never used and is tightly restricted to 8 hours. Unsurprisingly, violence is rare.

Contrast this with the U.S. corrections system, where penal life and settings are ordered around the paramount goals of “custody and order.” American prison life is built upon the dehumanizing rituals of induction, initiation, hierarchy, degradation and routine, all designed to assert authority and control over the bodies and lives of incarcerated people. Individuality is stripped away upon prison entry, replaced by an inmate number and a standardized, nondescript uniform.

You see the old adage that "guns don't cause crime, people do" is true.
- And apparently when compared to the penal system in parts of Europe - The American prison sytem is a compound felony

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 8:42 pm

Robert66 wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 5:52 pm
Given the trajectory of recent times, it won't be long until prisons are completely privatised. And unless something drastic happens to the way these businesses are run, expect rehabilitation of inmates to become a thing of the past - put in the too hard, too expensive basket.

That can't happen too soon. Inmate "rehabilitation," like "drug treatment" and "mental health treatment" are Pollyanna fantasies conjured up by bleeding-heart do-gooders and Christian soul-savers and eagerly embraced by the armies of social workers, counselors, and lawyers for whom it is a wonderful boondoggle.

77% of inmates released from state and federal prisons in any given year are re-arrested for new crimes within 9 years, about half in the first year after release, despite most of them having participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program. Those numbers are low, of course, because not all re-offenders are caught and re-arrested.

The purpose of a criminal justice system is 1) preventing or at least reducing crime, and 2) securing justice for its victims. It is NOT to "rehabilitate" anyone. The only effective means of accomplishing the former is removing criminals from the streets and keeping them off, and compelling them to make good on the damages they have caused.

Thanks for setting the record straight, Chief.

By the way, how are those wars on drugs and crime working out for you there?

Hey relax, I get it. We oughta lock 'em all up. Goddamned do-gooding. sorry, decrepit pieces of shet.

Robert66 wrote: ↑November 30th, 2022, 6:26 am
By the way, how are those wars on drugs and crime working out for you there?

Oh, the "war on drugs" is a lost cause; always as been. And there is no "war on crime." That has been largely abandoned. There are no "criminals" any more; only lost sheep, wayward children, "victims of society," to be rescued, "rehabilitated," "reformed," and returned to the fold. LOL.

Okay, this is where I have the physical experience. I was incarcerated for falling behind $750 on my child support for my 18-year-old when I was undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Am I a decrepit piece of shet? I don't think so. The people who are repeat offenders or violent offenders- they return to prison because once released they have lost everything- home, job, and sometimes even family refuses to help. Now as felons they are limited to who will employ them- generally, a minimum wage which you cannot live off of, few places will let them pay rent, and then the court system has the fines and possibly probation programs. I was sentenced to 6 months and was released facing similar issues even though I have a college degree, and never committed a crime, was not allowed to do a program for work while incarcerated so the $750 still didn't get paid, and was given 30 days to come up with the money or go back for another 6 months. The court system is a revolving door. When facing those odds, many felons resort to what they know. Victim Impact is given to victims of crimes, that's part of the fines.

Gun control won't work because criminals don't follow laws. Defunding the police in several cities has made people vulnerable to criminals knowing the probability of the police interfering with the crime has been reduced to almost non-existent.

There is gun insurance available. The USCAA offers several plans- and these include having representation if you use your weapon for self-defense. They also include paying for training for owners to know the laws, proper use of a weapon, and what to do to de-escalate a situation to avoid the need to use the weapon.
Making insurance mandatory might be worth considering, but I also believe people should be taught what proper gun ownership is supposed to be.
The war on drugs just made drug use criminal and filled the prisons with people caught with a joint serves 10 years only for marijuana to be legalized and they still sit in the prison.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 9:19 pm

Mounce574 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2022, 4:11 pm 79 people per 1,000 victimized- United Kingdom
38 people per 1,000 victimized- United States
101 people per 1,000 victimized- Australia- particular note 42% are sexual assault crimes.

Sources?

He's probably misread the stats. Whatever, not long ago provided the key stats about US and Australian gun deaths, but the gun advocates are clearly afraid to face those bald facts.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 9:57 pm
He's probably misread the stats. Whatever, not long ago provided the key stats about US and Australian gun deaths, but the gun advocates are clearly afraid to face those bald facts.

No response to the question about sources.

GE Morton wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 12:00 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 9:57 pm
He's probably misread the stats. Whatever, not long ago provided the key stats about US and Australian gun deaths, but the gun advocates are clearly afraid to face those bald facts.

No response to the question about sources.

Clearly you got your facts mixed up, hence your attempt to distract from your errors and the weakness of your position. The figures I provided were so clear and obvious that I didn't expect anyone to be naive enough to ask for sources. Of course, two minutes of research could have revealed the stats, so one can only assume you don't understand how to search the net.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... n-the-u-s/

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/comp ... gun_deaths

You may find this link helpful, since you seem to be unable to conduct searches yourself to check information: https://www.wikihow.com/Search-the-Internet

I expect you will want to debate this for fifty pages, until no one can forget how it started.

It started with me refuting claims that Australia had more gun deaths per capita than the US, which was clearly wildly incorrect. That's all I did, respond to a claim that was clearly not correct. Do you want to argue that Australia is more dangerous than the US because it doesn't allow urban citizens to keep weapons of war?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 12:18 am

GE Morton wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 12:00 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 9:57 pm
He's probably misread the stats. Whatever, not long ago provided the key stats about US and Australian gun deaths, but the gun advocates are clearly afraid to face those bald facts.

No response to the question about sources.

Clearly you got your facts mixed up, hence your attempt to distract from your errors and the weakness of your position. The figures were so clear and obvious that I didn't expect anyone to be naive enough to need sources.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... n-the-u-s/

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/comp ... gun_deaths

I suppose you are going to argue that guns make the US safer than Australia. Good luck with that. The whole world has been watching the US's disastrous policies erode the nation from the inside for the last half century. No rationalisations can make up for the suffering, disruptions, divisions and systemic destruction wreaked on the US by its self-destructive gun policies.

Aaaargh! Who are you criticizing? My comment above referenced Mounce, who had not supplied sources. Of course gun death rates in the US exceed those in Oz.

Mounce574 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 2:08 am Okay, this is where I have the physical experience. I was incarcerated for falling behind $750 on my child support for my 18-year-old when I was undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Am I a decrepit piece of shet? I don't think so. The people who are repeat offenders or violent offenders- they return to prison because once released they have lost everything- home, job, and sometimes even family refuses to help. Now as felons they are limited to who will employ them- generally, a minimum wage which you cannot live off of, few places will let them pay rent, and then the court system has the fines and possibly probation programs. I was sentenced to 6 months and was released facing similar issues even though I have a college degree, and never committed a crime, was not allowed to do a program for work while incarcerated so the $750 still didn't get paid, and was given 30 days to come up with the money or go back for another 6 months. The court system is a revolving door. When facing those odds, many felons resort to what they know. Victim Impact is given to victims of crimes, that's part of the fines.

Gun control won't work because criminals don't follow laws. Defunding the police in several cities has made people vulnerable to criminals knowing the probability of the police interfering with the crime has been reduced to almost non-existent.

There is gun insurance available. The USCAA offers several plans- and these include having representation if you use your weapon for self-defense. They also include paying for training for owners to know the laws, proper use of a weapon, and what to do to de-escalate a situation to avoid the need to use the weapon.
Making insurance mandatory might be worth considering, but I also believe people should be taught what proper gun ownership is supposed to be.
The war on drugs just made drug use criminal and filled the prisons with people caught with a joint serves 10 years only for marijuana to be legalized and they still sit in the prison.

Thanks for the heartfelt post Mounce. In response:

You quoted my words - "decrepit piece of shet" - I was directing this one to GE Morton, in a sarcastic way, as a response to his vitriolic characterisation of people who try to rehabilitate criminals. GE Morton wants to nail the revolving door shut, and believes that there is no hope of rehablitation for convicted criminals. I don't know that much about the US, but here in Australia we have (had?) places called correctional centres, and a lot of work has been put in to avoiding the "revolving door" scenario, by people who GE Morton dismisses and insults as do-gooders etc. With privatisation of the prison system, and de-funding of programs aimed at rehabilitation, any hope for positive change, and for correction to occur, will be lost.

Put another, more brutal way - GE Morton believes that you should be locked away forever.

Compounding the problems I have already mentioned, many people are convicted of minor crimes, and sentenced to short prison terms, rather than being fined or placed on a good behaviour bond, or made to undertake some kind of labour which benefits the community, and so they are in prison for a short time, insufficient to properly access the rehabilitative help they need, and guess what happens? They are back out in society, only this time they are branded, just as you have described.

I propose a better way. OK let's allow prisons to be privatised. After all, governments don't do much any more - everyone wants smaller government now, right? Governments should get out of the markets' way, right? Who wants more bureaucrats? Nobody (except those who actually earn their living as bureaucrats, but they are too shet-scared to make a peep, because everyone else so obviously hates them, and blames them for everything).

So prisons are all privately owned by companies with shareholders. BUT instead of a lock-em-up free for all, why not tie the remuneration of those companies to their success in reducing recidivism? As in: Company X, owner of Prisons Y and Z, you get a huge bonus this year, because 50% of your former inmates are now gainfully employed, and 80% have remained out of prison for 3 years.

Mounce574 wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 2:08 am Okay, this is where I have the physical experience. I was incarcerated for falling behind $750 on my child support for my 18-year-old when I was undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Am I a decrepit piece of shet? I don't think so.

Methinks you're leaving something out there, Mounce. While (in many US states) you can be jailed for failing to pay child support, that will only happen when the Court determines you have the ability to pay. Persons who do not have the ability can petition the court for a modification of the amount or the scheduling of payments. Those are almost always granted if the petitioner can demonstrate the hardship.

The war on drugs just made drug use criminal and filled the prisons with people caught with a joint serves 10 years only for marijuana to be legalized and they still sit in the prison.

Yes indeed. That is outrageous. When I speak of "criminals," I means persons who've committed crimes with actual victims, who have inflicted harms or losses, without justification, on other persons.

Robert66 wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 1:59 am
You quoted my words - "decrepit piece of shet" - I was directing this one to GE Morton, in a sarcastic way, as a response to his vitriolic characterisation of people who try to rehabilitate criminals. GE Morton wants to nail the revolving door shut, and believes that there is no hope of rehablitation for convicted criminals. I don't know that much about the US, but here in Australia we have (had?) places called correctional centres, and a lot of work has been put in to avoiding the "revolving door" scenario, by people who GE Morton dismisses and insults as do-gooders etc. With privatisation of the prison system, and de-funding of programs aimed at rehabilitation, any hope for positive change, and for correction to occur, will be lost.

Many studies have been done on the effectiveness of inmate "rehabilitation" programs. The success rate (based on reductions of recidivism) of the best of them reduce recidivism by about 25%, which means that, instead of 77% of inmates returning to prison, only 58% do. Those programs are also the most costly, involving intensive, long-term after-release monitoring and counseling. As a result they're typically experimental pilot programs which end when the grant financing them runs out, and are not routinely used by most states. Those routinely used have even worse results.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ic_Reviews

(See Table 2).

See also:

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

"Rehabilitation" programs also have a down side, negative impacts on public safety: parole boards look favorably upon participation in such programs when deciding whether to release an inmate. The thugs, being well-ware of this, enroll in those programs even though they have no intention of "reforming." Since most of those "rehabilitated" thugs will nonetheless continue their criminal ways, more criminals are set loose on the streets sooner.

Put another, more brutal way - GE Morton believes that you should be locked away forever.

Not at all. Mounce's "offense" is not a crime at all (plus I think he's omitting some salient facts regarding his case). It is a civil offense.

Nor should criminals be "locked way forever" on a first or even second offense. Most first offenders should not be locked up at all, but instead ordered to make restitution and directed to counseling, the purpose of which would be to determine what factors led to the crime and provide the defendant with some guidance for addressing them. But after a third offense you lock them up for a minimum of 10 years --- or for life, for violent felonies.

So prisons are all privately owned by companies with shareholders. BUT instead of a lock-em-up free for all, why not tie the remuneration of those companies to their success in reducing recidivism? As in: Company X, owner of Prisons Y and Z, you get a huge bonus this year, because 50% of your former inmates are now gainfully employed, and 80% have remained out of prison for 3 years.

Excellent idea!

I'm a woman. The facts of the case: Dad sued for child support stating that the checks couldn't be cashed because they expired after six months. So I received the money back and kept it in a savings account. Because he opened the contempt of court, the judge created a no-contest plea, where I gave him the entire amount that was in the savings and was to stay current on all payments. If I fell behind, then I would be sanctioned to 6 months in the county jail- no trustee status, cash bond only. When I had surgery and chemo, I fell behind $750. Normally they add another $500 fine to the amount owed. The judge was nice enough not to do that but I had to pay $750 cash to be released from jail. Meanwhile, the current payments for the time I am in jail started to be added to the amount owed- thus putting me further behind. It was a civil case.
Likewise, in 2014 when an ex shot at me and my children, he was arrested. He was given 20 years of probation for shooting with intent to kill, domestic assault by strangulation, and assault against a police officer. He served no time. He has violated his probation and still has served no time.
The entire justice system needs to be examined.

In Oklahoma- David L. Moss Correctional Center- where I served (maximum security) is privately owned.
I think they should have work programs that benefit the community, Beyond that, violent offenders shouldn't be allowed to have the opportunity to repeat their actions, and violations of their probation should be an automatic go to jail. I know violent offenders in Oklahoma that are sent to prison have to serve 85% of their time no matter how many programs they use. Non-violent offenders can get 4 to 1s- four days of credit for every day- if they don't violate any rules in prison. Civil cases are not considered anything and don't register as a misdemeanor or a felony unless you willfully do not pay. I applied for a modification, but since it wasn't a welfare set up for child support, it had to be approved by my ex and he refused.