Philosophy Discussion Forums

UchihaSasuke wrote: ↑March 26th, 2019, 12:51 pm What I suspect is that if the current system is replaced by the "compassionate treatment facilities" as described by @Scott where convicts are treated with professional care and do not have to earn the resources spent on them, then it might encourage convicts rather than dissuade them from visiting prisons on a regular basis. Do let me know what you think.

One fundamental thing about prison, and being there, is that the convict is deprived of the means to interact with the rest of us. They are confined. They are cast out. Does anyone really want this? Might they not do all they can to avoid it, or to avoid it happening to them again?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 15th, 2019, 1:11 pm
There are many examples of countries where solutions other than imprisonment seem to work better in practice. Shouldn't we, who imprison so many of our citizens, look at the evidence-based achievements of others? And shouldn't we be trying out, or just adopting, those methods that work the best?

The trouble with international comparisons is that different countries have different demographics, different histories, differing dominant weltanschauungen and are enforcing different laws. You're usually not comparing apples to apples, and so what works in one place will not necessarily work in another.

We could even take another step back, and wonder about our laws, and how we determine our actions if our laws are broken? A simple example: is it appropriate to imprison, or even punish, those who smoke weed? Never mind the actual issue; just consider whether what we currently do benefits our society? Could we act differently, and gain greater benefit still?

I certainly agree that no one should be punished for victimless crimes, such as drug use. But in deciding how to deal with real crimes we need to decide what are the goals sought. I take them to be two: 1) Reducing the losses and injuries inflicted by criminals, and 2) securing justice for the victims of crimes. Imprisonment, if properly applied, achieves the former, but does nothing to address the latter. And it doesn't even achieve the former when offenders with 3, 5, 10 previous convictions are released after serving a few months or a year or two in prison, as is typical in the US.

Yes. Society needs prisons. 1. To punish criminals. 2. To bring justice. 3. To placate victims. 4. To deter crime while under imprisonment. 5. To give lapse of time for prisoner to repent, review, and reform. 6. imprisonment is the cheapest means to spend taxpayer's money on criminals. 7. to re-educate and re-train prisoners.

We can use a better term for prison, like reformatory. It has been done in places like Hongkong. The change in name is not just symbolic. It works, psychologically and mentally, as far as the prisoner and his circle is concerned, and on the warden and guards too.

GE Morton wrote: ↑November 15th, 2019, 2:34 pm But in deciding how to deal with real crimes we need to decide what are the goals sought. I take them to be two: 1) Reducing the losses and injuries inflicted by criminals, and 2) securing justice for the victims of crimes. Imprisonment, if properly applied, achieves the former, but does nothing to address the latter. And it doesn't even achieve the former when offenders with 3, 5, 10 previous convictions are released after serving a few months or a year or two in prison, as is typical in the US.

I have one to add to your list: 3) protecting potential future victims who have yet to be harmed by criminals. We cannot undo that which has already been done, but we can, perhaps, protect those who have not yet become victims. And maybe there's another entry for the list: 4) rehabilitation, returning criminal citizens to a productive and contributing life within society, instead of just being a drain on us all (cost of imprisonment, etc).

Instead of asking if society needs prisons, maybe the right question is: what do we hope to gain from prisons, and imprisonment? And secondarily, do we actually achieve these aims?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 10:42 am
I have one to add to your list: 3) protecting potential future victims who have yet to be harmed by criminals.

We do that by removing criminals from the streets before they can create more victims.

And maybe there's another entry for the list: 4) rehabilitation, returning criminal citizens to a productive and contributing life within society, instead of just being a drain on us all (cost of imprisonment, etc).

For most of them there can be no "returning," since they have never been productive, contributing citizens. Nor any "rehabilitation" either, for the same reason (to "rehabilitate" is to return something to an original or previous functional state). The best inmate "rehabilitation" strategies reduce the recidivism rate by about 25%, i.e., from 75% to about 56%. Most do worse. It is not cost-effective. More importantly, citizens have no duties to "rehabilitate" anyone.

The costs could be reduced by adopting the "restitution" model of criminal justice. Prisons become work centers, where inmates must work to cover the costs of their keep and pay damages to the victims of their crimes, as determined in a civil proceeding following the criminal conviction. They are not released until that restitution obligation has been paid in full.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 2:01 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 10:42 am
I have one to add to your list: 3) protecting potential future victims who have yet to be harmed by criminals.

We do that by removing criminals from the streets before they can create more victims.

And maybe there's another entry for the list: 4) rehabilitation, returning criminal citizens to a productive and contributing life within society, instead of just being a drain on us all (cost of imprisonment, etc).

For most of them there can be no "returning," since they have never been productive, contributing citizens. Nor any "rehabilitation" either, for the same reason (to "rehabilitate" is to return something to an original or previous functional state). The best inmate "rehabilitation" strategies reduce the recidivism rate by about 25%, i.e., from 75% to about 56%. Most do worse. It is not cost-effective. More importantly, citizens have no duties to "rehabilitate" anyone.

The costs could be reduced by adopting the "restitution" model of criminal justice. Prisons become work centers, where inmates must work to cover the costs of their keep and pay damages to the victims of their crimes, as determined in a civil proceeding following the criminal conviction. They are not released until that restitution obligation has been paid in full.

The ability of prison to reduce the statistical likelihood of reoffending is typically cited as being quite low. However that is an oversimplification. It is definitely stratified by age, such that a prisoner released younger than age 30 has a greater than 50% chance of reoffending while there is a "cure" rate for crime of almost 90% for prisoners released greater than age 60. Therefore there is value to society for parking criminals in prison, separate from the crimes they don't commit while actually incarcerated.

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 9:20 pm
The ability of prison to reduce the statistical likelihood of reoffending is typically cited as being quite low. However that is an oversimplification. It is definitely stratified by age, such that a prisoner released younger than age 30 has a greater than 50% chance of reoffending while there is a "cure" rate for crime of almost 90% for prisoners released greater than age 60.

Per the most recent BJS report 77% of released state inmates re-offend within 5 years, 83% within 9 years. That is for all inmates. Per that report the 9-year rate is 90.1% for inmates 24 or younger, 76.5% for inmates 40 or older. They show no figure for 60 or older.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf

Therefore there is value to society for parking criminals in prison, separate from the crimes they don't commit while actually incarcerated.

What value is that? Prevention of those additional crimes would seem to be reason enough to keep them locked up. Keeping them in prison until they are older means more of that benefit, not a different one.

One thing to remember about recidivism stats is that they only count criminals who have been caught again after being released. No doubt at least some of them will have improved their skills while in prison or later, and managed to avoid arrest for subsequent crimes. The actual recidivism rate is surely higher, perhaps substantially.

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 10:22 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 9:20 pm
The ability of prison to reduce the statistical likelihood of reoffending is typically cited as being quite low. However that is an oversimplification. It is definitely stratified by age, such that a prisoner released younger than age 30 has a greater than 50% chance of reoffending while there is a "cure" rate for crime of almost 90% for prisoners released greater than age 60.

Per the most recent BJS report 77% of released state inmates re-offend within 5 years, 83% within 9 years. That is for all inmates. Per that report the 9-year rate is 90.1% for inmates 24 or younger, 76.5% for inmates 40 or older. They show no figure for 60 or older.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf

Therefore there is value to society for parking criminals in prison, separate from the crimes they don't commit while actually incarcerated.

What value is that? Prevention of those additional crimes would seem to be reason enough to keep them locked up. Keeping them in prison until they are older means more of that benefit, not a different one.

One thing to remember about recidivism stats is that they only count criminals who have been caught again after being released. No doubt at least some of them will have improved their skills while in prison or later, and managed to avoid arrest for subsequent crimes. The actual recidivism rate is surely higher, perhaps substantially.

You're preaching to the choir. Basically you are confirming my post with stats from a different source. Kudos to you.

I think we need to separate some people, especially those who are prone to nonconsensual violence, from the main body of society. I'm not in favor of current prisons as the means of separation. Ideally we'd be able to separate the people we need to separate geographically, in a way that we do not need to worry about them reintegrating with the main body of society before they're safely able to (if ever), but where they're free to live among themselves as "normal citizens" in their milieu.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 9:57 am I think we need to separate some people, especially those who are prone to nonconsensual violence, from the main body of society. I'm not in favor of current prisons as the means of separation. Ideally we'd be able to separate the people we need to separate geographically, in a way that we do not need to worry about them reintegrating with the main body of society before they're safely able to (if ever), but where they're free to live among themselves as "normal citizens" in their milieu.

Ah, yes. The penal colony concept.

Just so you know, those dudes are going to want dates...

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 4:53 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 9:57 am I think we need to separate some people, especially those who are prone to nonconsensual violence, from the main body of society. I'm not in favor of current prisons as the means of separation. Ideally we'd be able to separate the people we need to separate geographically, in a way that we do not need to worry about them reintegrating with the main body of society before they're safely able to (if ever), but where they're free to live among themselves as "normal citizens" in their milieu.

Ah, yes. The penal colony concept.

Just so you know, those dudes are going to want dates...

Ooohkay . . . not that I'd have criminals segregated by gender, by the way.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 5:07 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 4:53 pm

Ah, yes. The penal colony concept.

Just so you know, those dudes are going to want dates...

Ooohkay . . . not that I'd have criminals segregated by gender, by the way.

Naturally, just pointing out the obvious.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 9:57 am I think we need to separate some people, especially those who are prone to nonconsensual violence, from the main body of society. I'm not in favor of current prisons as the means of separation. Ideally we'd be able to separate the people we need to separate geographically, in a way that we do not need to worry about them reintegrating with the main body of society before they're safely able to (if ever), but where they're free to live among themselves as "normal citizens" in their milieu.

Perhaps this needs some clarification but I don't think a hands this approach will allow prisoners to reintegrate into society and I'm assuming you wouldn't throw together people convicted of minor felonies in with homicidal convicts. The prison system I see in the United States is awful as a result of the fact prison contracts are intended to profit off of the government's need for prison's resulting in incentives to keep lots of people locked away.

I think we need a solution that involves a financial incentive to rehabilitate criminals quickly for successful reintegration into society vs. simply keeping people captive for profit off of government contracts paid for by taxes.

Ensrick wrote: ↑April 7th, 2020, 1:09 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 9:57 am I think we need to separate some people, especially those who are prone to nonconsensual violence, from the main body of society. I'm not in favor of current prisons as the means of separation. Ideally we'd be able to separate the people we need to separate geographically, in a way that we do not need to worry about them reintegrating with the main body of society before they're safely able to (if ever), but where they're free to live among themselves as "normal citizens" in their milieu.

Perhaps this needs some clarification but I don't think a hands this approach will allow prisoners to reintegrate into society and I'm assuming you wouldn't throw together people convicted of minor felonies in with homicidal convicts. The prison system I see in the United States is awful as a result of the fact prison contracts are intended to profit off of the government's need for prison's resulting in incentives to keep lots of people locked away.

I think we need a solution that involves a financial incentive to rehabilitate criminals quickly for successful reintegration into society vs. simply keeping people captive for profit off of government contracts paid for by taxes.

High time the US looked at Scandinavia.
Sadly they never will since there is lots of money to be made from having the highest residivism rate on earth. Keep those doors swinging inwards, until those crims are packed in like sardines!!!

GE Morton wrote: ↑January 5th, 2020, 10:22 pm

Per the most recent BJS report 77% of released state inmates re-offend within 5 years, 83% within 9 years. That is for all inmates. Per that report the 9-year rate is 90.1% for inmates 24 or younger, 76.5% for inmates 40 or older. They show no figure for 60 or older.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf

This is the US. Civilized countries have much better outcomes.
The US incentivizes residivism.