Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 10:51 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 6:10 am
The residivism rate is simply the re-offending rate; People who find themselves back in prison within x number of years. There are typically two lengths of time; 5 and 9 years. Norway has the lowest; American the highest.

Egads. Educate yourself. Norway reports recidivism on a 2-year basis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/

Inmate per population is also lower.
recidivism over 9 years is also lower.
It used to be much higher until they softened the system and emphasised rehabilitation, rather than punishment.
I quote from Wiki
"Prior to the introduction of the restorative justice system, Norway had a punitive justice system. In 1968 Norway's people were unsatisfied with the harsh living conditions of the correctional system[4] and the Norwegian Association for Criminal Reform (KROM) was formed.[4] KROM attacked the penal system which depended on medical treatment of offenders. The offender was treated medically and, depending on the success of the treatment, they were incarcerated for an appropriate term. In 1970 the first act was to abolish forced labor systems. By 1975 juvenile delinquency centers were abolished. The penal model was a failure, with a recidivism rate of 91 percent..."

But because this does not match your lockemupnthrowawaythekey its their fault because god hates them attitude - you want to ignore the basic empirical truth.

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 12:02 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 11:25 am
But prisons are not an efficient means to stopping crimes. To stop crimes you have to stop the causes of the crimes.

The problem there is that we don't know what are the "causes" of crimes, any more than we know the causes of any other human behavior

More ********.

Places where there are good welfare safety nets tend to make better citizens.
In the US people are just thrown to the dogs. If they don't have the good fortune to have parents, or other supporting networks, such as a good education and health service; if they suffer from institutional abuse, racism and prejudice they tend to be prey to unscrupulous criminal gangs who recruit vulnerable people. It's also about feeling they can be a part of society rather than apart from it. Belonging tends to make better citizens.

Only a person with a sever lack of imagination and life experience would reduce it all to Beethoven and Mozart.

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 12:02 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 11:25 am
But prisons are not an efficient means to stopping crimes. To stop crimes you have to stop the causes of the crimes.

The problem there is that we don't know what are the "causes" of crimes, any more than we know the causes of any other human behavior --- any more than we know why some people prefer Beethoven and others prefer Mozart, or why some people enjoy skiing and others don't. Crime, like all other human behavior, does not have causes; it has motives.

Of course, a determinist would disagree. But then he has the burden of elucidating the all the causes of the infinity of unpredictable human behaviors.

BTW, be sure not to confuse correlation with causation.

I agree that prisons are not a terribly efficient solution; they are costly. Those costs can be reduced by compelling inmates to work, both to earn their keep and to compensate their victims for the losses the criminals have inflicted upon them.

But I know the causes of crimes.

Belindi wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 2:27 pm
But I know the causes of crimes.

Oh? What are those?

Again, be sure not to confuse correlation with causation.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 2:14 pm
In the US people are just thrown to the dogs.

Really? Who threw Ted Bundy to the dogs? Willie Sutton? Charles Manson? Clyde Barrow?

You've clearly bought into to lefty fiction that "society" is responsible for behavior of criminals. NO person is responsible for the behavior of any other person. Nor is any person responsible for the welfare of any other person, unless he has freely assumed it by becoming a parent or entering into some sort of contract, or unless he has previously injured that person, intentionally or unintentionally. Nor is any person responsible for making up for any other person's bad luck or difficult circumstances. Your behavior and your welfare are your responsibility, no one else's.

Every person must play the hand he is dealt. Anyone who can't or won't do it without inflicting losses or injuries on other people is unsuited for life in a social setting, and those victims and potential victims are perfectly justified in removing him from it.

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 6:58 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 2:27 pm
But I know the causes of crimes.

Oh? What are those?

Again, be sure not to confuse correlation with causation.

The crimes that aren't caused by unequal distributions of power are caused by mental illness.

Causation is constant correlations neither more nor less as far as we can know. You nor I can never see cause as a thing in itself, and is possibly synthetic a priori which is epistemological anyway. I am a strong determinist after Spinoza, however the axioms are matters of faith.

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 7:30 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 2:14 pm
In the US people are just thrown to the dogs.

Really? Who threw Ted Bundy to the dogs? Willie Sutton? Charles Manson? Clyde Barrow?

Idiot.
I'm talking about the general population.

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 7:30 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 2:14 pm
In the US people are just thrown to the dogs.

Really? Who threw Ted Bundy to the dogs? Willie Sutton? Charles Manson? Clyde Barrow?

But since you mention Manson, he thrived exactly because the US has poor regard for its people. He recruited his entourage from the vulnerable, just like Joe Exotic, and other Big Cat Cults that we learn about in Tiger King.
Cults are most common in the US, from David Koresh, Moonies ad nauseam. All recruit people who would otherwise not be so vulnerable if there were more support services in the community.
Drug addiction and drug dealership also thrives on the paucity of US welfare.

Belindi wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 2:36 am
The crimes that aren't caused by unequal distributions of power are caused by mental illness.

"Unequal distributions of power"? Never mind the vagueness of "power" there (what sort of power? Power to do what?). Whatever sort of power you have in mind, it will surely never be equal, because humans are not equal. I've never had, and will never have, the power to win the Gold Medal in weightlifting in the Olympics. Few people have, or ever had, the intellectual "power" to develop the theory of relativity, or quantum theory. Most people do, however, have the power to provide for themselves, as do most animals of all other species (else the species would be extinct by now).

Unequal distributions of power are universal, ubiquitous, and inevitable. Yet only a few people are criminals.

Mental illness doesn't work very well either. Most persons with mental illnesses are not criminals.

Causation is constant correlations neither more nor less as far as we can know.

No, Belindi. Correlation, constant or not, is not cause. Warm weather in the Southern hemisphere is constantly correlated with cold weather in the Northern hemisphere. Sales of ice cream are constantly correlated with sale of sunglasses. But the first is not the cause of the second, or vice-versa, in either case.

X is the cause of Y only if Y does not occur unless X happens first, and if X happens, then Y must happen --- every time. If X is the cause of Y, then Y is predictable given X.

There is no known factor which is reliably predictive of criminal acts (or for any other intentional human acts).

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 4:25 am All recruit people who would otherwise not be so vulnerable if there were more support services in the community.
Drug addiction and drug dealership also thrives on the paucity of US welfare.

That is too silly to be worthy of comment. The only "support services" that might deter robbers, thieves, and drug dealers is one that gives them more money than they could make plying their trades. The only "support service that might deter rapists is one that supplies them with women they can abuse. The only "support service" that might deter murderers is one that kills the intended victim for them.

What an inane fantasy.

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 11:59 am

Belindi wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 2:36 am
The crimes that aren't caused by unequal distributions of power are caused by mental illness.

"Unequal distributions of power"? Never mind the vagueness of "power" there (what sort of power? Power to do what?). Whatever sort of power you have in mind, it will surely never be equal, because humans are not equal. I've never had, and will never have, the power to win the Gold Medal in weightlifting in the Olympics. Few people have, or ever had, the intellectual "power" to develop the theory of relativity, or quantum theory. Most people do, however, have the power to provide for themselves, as do most animals of all other species (else the species would be extinct by now).

Unequal distributions of power are universal, ubiquitous, and inevitable. Yet only a few people are criminals.

Mental illness doesn't work very well either. Most persons with mental illnesses are not criminals.

Causation is constant correlations neither more nor less as far as we can know.

No, Belindi. Correlation, constant or not, is not cause. Warm weather in the Southern hemisphere is constantly correlated with cold weather in the Northern hemisphere. Sales of ice cream are constantly correlated with sale of sunglasses. But the first is not the cause of the second, or vice-versa, in either case.

X is the cause of Y only if Y does not occur unless X happens first, and if X happens, then Y must happen --- every time. If X is the cause of Y, then Y is predictable given X.

There is no known factor which is reliably predictive of criminal acts (or for any other intentional human acts).

I cannot remember what Idid write but I ought to have written all we know of causes are constant correlations. So I agree. I like your examples of nomic connections. Nomic connections have higher order causes so that for instance increased sales of ice cream and increase in sales of sunglasses are together caused by summer which in its turn is caused by changing seasons which in its turn is caused by the Earth's orbit round the Sun. (Or you have your own causal narrative maybe).Same as for simple causal chains, we never see a thing called a cause. All we can see are constant correlations.


By power I mean choices. For instance the poor person is more likey to live in a high rise flat than a house with garden so has less power of self preservation during lock down.A poor person has probably had a less good education so has less moral choice, less aesthetic choice, less vocational choice, and less political choice. It's not true "most people have the power to provide for themselves" and I guess your view of world bad news is blinkered, HG Morton.

Many if not most people in prison have mental illness or drug addiction, and come from poorer demographic groups. Cultures of criminality are caused by poor educations which either limit life choices, or are white collar crimes committed by the wealthy whose educations lacked the human breadth that would have cultivated ordinary human sympathy..

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 12:16 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 4:25 am All recruit people who would otherwise not be so vulnerable if there were more support services in the community.
Drug addiction and drug dealership also thrives on the paucity of US welfare.

That is too silly to be worthy of comment. The only "support services" that might deter robbers, thieves, and drug dealers is one that gives them more money than they could make plying their trades. The only "support service that might deter rapists is one that supplies them with women they can abuse. The only "support service" that might deter murderers is one that kills the intended victim for them.

What an inane fantasy.

You know it is true.

Belindi wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 2:27 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑April 8th, 2020, 12:02 pm

The problem there is that we don't know what are the "causes" of crimes, any more than we know the causes of any other human behavior --- any more than we know why some people prefer Beethoven and others prefer Mozart, or why some people enjoy skiing and others don't. Crime, like all other human behavior, does not have causes; it has motives.

Of course, a determinist would disagree. But then he has the burden of elucidating the all the causes of the infinity of unpredictable human behaviors.

BTW, be sure not to confuse correlation with causation.

I agree that prisons are not a terribly efficient solution; they are costly. Those costs can be reduced by compelling inmates to work, both to earn their keep and to compensate their victims for the losses the criminals have inflicted upon them.

But I know the causes of crimes.

People who do not want to listen to the facts tend to pretend that no one knows.

Belindi wrote: ↑April 9th, 2020, 3:13 pm
I cannot remember what Idid write but I ought to have written all we know of causes are constant correlations. . . . Same as for simple causal chains, we never see a thing called a cause. All we can see are constant correlations.

You're sounding like Hume.

There is an answer to his observations re: causation, but that is another thread.

The problem with your constant correlations is that they are not constant. You can only say that X is a cause of Y when Y always follows Y. If I touch a lighted match to a pile of dry tinder, it will always catch fire; we can say the lighted match was the cause of the fire. But there is no X from which crime always follows. There is not even an X from which crime usually follows. All you have is a somewhat higher frequency of crime among the less educated, less wealthy, etc. But educated, wealthy persons also commit crimes, and most poor, uneducated people don't. Hence those factors cannot be causes of crimes.

Cultures of criminality are caused by poor educations which either limit life choices, or are white collar crimes committed by the wealthy whose educations lacked the human breadth that would have cultivated ordinary human sympathy..

Now, now. "Lacked human breath"? What is your evidence for that? That is clearly an ad hoc excuse for the many counterexamples to the "poor, uneducated" theory.

We need to stop thinking of criminal behaviors as somehow "special" and in need of special, causal explanations. They are atypical, but so are most other human behaviors. Some people learn to play the piano; most don't. Some people love skiiing; most don't. Some people work crossword puzzles; most don't. Some people rob banks or rape women; most don't. It makes no more sense to ask for the "causes" of bank-robbing than to ask for the causes of piano-playing.

Sorry, "breadth" for "breath" above.