Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 12th, 2022, 8:58 am

gontijoloyola wrote: ↑June 11th, 2022, 11:01 pm Is there really any alternative? What to do with superviolent criminals? The prison system can be minimized, but never supressed.

Criminals, super-violent or otherwise, can be imprisoned, executed, or released. There are other options too; prison remains one of them, but only one.

It's definitely the best of the three that you mentioned.

gontijoloyola wrote: ↑June 11th, 2022, 11:01 pm Is there really any alternative? What to do with superviolent criminals? The prison system can be minimized, but never supressed.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 12th, 2022, 8:58 am Criminals, super-violent or otherwise, can be imprisoned, executed, or released. There are other options too; prison remains one of them, but only one.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 12th, 2022, 4:29 pm It's definitely the best of the three that you mentioned.

I take a broad view. I think that, when a court is considering criminal behaviour, all options should be available. Previous verdicts ("precedents") should be available for reference, but not binding on future decisions. Each case is different, and requires (in an ideal world) different treatment. The guiding principle is, IMO, that a court should produce a verdict that is fair and just for all concerned. And "all" there means the accused, the victim(s), their friends and families, the general public and the whole of society: all.

In addition, I would favour reparation over punishment. If possible, I want to see a criminal putting something back, to try to make up for the wrong that was done. I would rather see a criminal rebuild a wall than in prison, at our expense, in punishment for knocking the wall down.

So I think prison should remain an option, even though there is much wrong with existing prisons. There are some crimes, in some circumstances, that require the guilty party to be excluded from society, and prisons fulfil that role.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 13th, 2022, 8:07 am
In addition, I would favour reparation over punishment. If possible, I want to see a criminal putting something back, to try to make up for the wrong that was done. I would rather see a criminal rebuild a wall than in prison, at our expense, in punishment for knocking the wall down.

Sounds like you would favor Randy Barnett's "Restitution Model":

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 13th, 2022, 11:49 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 13th, 2022, 8:07 am
In addition, I would favour reparation over punishment. If possible, I want to see a criminal putting something back, to try to make up for the wrong that was done. I would rather see a criminal rebuild a wall than in prison, at our expense, in punishment for knocking the wall down.

Sounds like you would favor Randy Barnett's "Restitution Model":

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub

Yes, restitution seems a lot more constructive to me than vengeance.

Here's a stat I happened across:

There are about 6 million adult males in the penal system. About 16% are psychopaths (about 1 million). This equates to about 93% of all adult male psychopaths being in jail, prison, parole or probation. One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the resistance to rehabilitation.

So, what is the alternative to incarceration for this substantial minority of the prison population?

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 10:30 am There are about 6 million adult males in the penal system. About 16% are psychopaths (about 1 million). This equates to about 93% of all adult male psychopaths being in jail, prison, parole or probation. One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the resistance to rehabilitation.

So, what is the alternative to incarceration for this substantial minority of the prison population?

In the case where someone has been convicted of a criminal act, and imprisoned, I am in favour of releasing them only when we can be reasonably sure that the general population is no longer at risk from them. If this never occurs, they can never be released. IMO. And, in such cases, I can see no alternative to social separation/exclusion, maybe in a prison, maybe in some different (but secure) accommodation. If they can't be trusted to be released, the alternatives seem limited: continued incarceration ... or execution. Personally, I would avoid the latter.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 10:30 am Here's a stat I happened across:

There are about 6 million adult males in the penal system. About 16% are psychopaths (about 1 million). This equates to about 93% of all adult male psychopaths being in jail, prison, parole or probation. One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the resistance to rehabilitation.

So, what is the alternative to incarceration for this substantial minority of the prison population?

Easy one. Mental institutions. The "de-institutionalization" movement beginning in the '50s --- another hare-brained idea of leftish social scientists --- resulted in closure of dozens of hospitals and released 500,000 patients to the streets, many of whom ended up in jail.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... es/2013-10

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 10:43 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 10:30 am There are about 6 million adult males in the penal system. About 16% are psychopaths (about 1 million). This equates to about 93% of all adult male psychopaths being in jail, prison, parole or probation. One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the resistance to rehabilitation.

So, what is the alternative to incarceration for this substantial minority of the prison population?

In the case where someone has been convicted of a criminal act, and imprisoned, I am in favour of releasing them only when we can be reasonably sure that the general population is no longer at risk from them. If this never occurs, they can never be released. IMO. And, in such cases, I can see no alternative to social separation/exclusion, maybe in a prison, maybe in some different (but secure) accommodation. If they can't be trusted to be released, the alternatives seem limited: continued incarceration ... or execution. Personally, I would avoid the latter.

I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 12:38 pm I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 2:33 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 12:38 pm I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Likewise, but for a somewhat different reason --- capital punishment is power which should never be entrusted to any government. Not only is it error-prone (as are all "due process" convictions), it's errors are irreversible. And if it is allowed it is certain to be abused by aspiring tyrants.

Like Frodo in Lord of the Rings, one finds allies in the most unexpected places.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 2:33 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 12:38 pm I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Yes, let's! How though?

Robert66 wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 5:39 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 2:33 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 12:38 pm I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

Yes, let's! How though?

Should we feed all the evidence and arguments into a supercomputer for an objective, flawless techno-judgment, or continue to rely on error-prone humans?

GE Morton wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 12:37 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 10:30 am Here's a stat I happened across:

There are about 6 million adult males in the penal system. About 16% are psychopaths (about 1 million). This equates to about 93% of all adult male psychopaths being in jail, prison, parole or probation. One of the hallmarks of psychopathy is the resistance to rehabilitation.

So, what is the alternative to incarceration for this substantial minority of the prison population?

Easy one. Mental institutions. The "de-institutionalization" movement beginning in the '50s --- another hare-brained idea of leftish social scientists --- resulted in closure of dozens of hospitals and released 500,000 patients to the streets, many of whom ended up in jail.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... es/2013-10

That's incarceration in a different location. Fully functioning criminal psychopaths don't belong in mental institutions with the non-functioning.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 2:33 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑June 14th, 2022, 12:38 pm I similarly cannot support capital punishment, though on practical, not moral grounds.

Likewise. There are too many innocent people convicted for us to be at ease with such an irreversible punishment. First let's guarantee that no innocent people are convicted; then, perhaps, we can safely re-consider capital punishment...?

That's only one issue. Another is that capital punishment is unevenly distributed on racial grounds. Lastly, for truly heinous crimes, it's too lenient.