Philosophy Discussion Forums

GE Morton wrote:This statement was interesting: "Adult offenders with 11+ previous offences make up 38% of all adult offenders in the cohort, but committed over 75% of all adult proven reoffences."

Sounds much like the US. Forces the question: "Why are persons with 11 previous offenses still loose on the streets?"

Difficult to tell without knowing what those offences were. Presumably the sentences must have been extremely short or there must have been a single sentence covering several offences. So I presume they weren't murder because murder attracts a life sentence. The number of people who commit murder, are imprisoned for it and then come out and commit murder again appears to be very small compared to the total number of murders. The knife crime problem in London does not appear to be caused by people who have been released too early after killing previously.

(After today I'm going on holiday for a few days and won't be able to reply during that time. Will probably next be able to reply next weekend.)

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 11th, 2019, 3:11 am

GE Morton wrote:This statement was interesting: "Adult offenders with 11+ previous offences make up 38% of all adult offenders in the cohort, but committed over 75% of all adult proven reoffences."

Sounds much like the US. Forces the question: "Why are persons with 11 previous offenses still loose on the streets?"

Difficult to tell without knowing what those offences were. Presumably the sentences must have been extremely short or there must have been a single sentence covering several offences. So I presume they weren't murder because murder attracts a life sentence. The number of people who commit murder, are imprisoned for it and then come out and commit murder again appears to be very small compared to the total number of murders. The knife crime problem in London does not appear to be caused by people who have been released too early after killing previously.

That is also true in the US. Not many convicted murderers commit murder after being released, largely because they will have served quite long sentences and are older. But most of them will have committed numerous previous offenses short of murder, which should have taken them off the streets years earlier.

GE Morton wrote: ↑August 11th, 2019, 7:56 pm

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 11th, 2019, 3:11 am

Difficult to tell without knowing what those offences were. Presumably the sentences must have been extremely short or there must have been a single sentence covering several offences. So I presume they weren't murder because murder attracts a life sentence. The number of people who commit murder, are imprisoned for it and then come out and commit murder again appears to be very small compared to the total number of murders. The knife crime problem in London does not appear to be caused by people who have been released too early after killing previously.

That is also true in the US. Not many convicted murderers commit murder after being released, largely because they will have served quite long sentences and are older. But most of them will have committed numerous previous offenses short of murder, which should have taken them off the streets years earlier.

The US isn't suffering from a reluctance to incarcerate large numbers of criminals for lengthy periods of time so you'll have to look elsewhere to explain the high murder rate

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 12th, 2019, 4:14 pm
The US isn't suffering from a reluctance to incarcerate large numbers of criminals for lengthy periods of time so you'll have to look elsewhere to explain the high murder rate

The median stay in state prisons in the US is 1.3 years. Persons serving less than one year in state prison represented 40% of first releases in 2016.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf

The "large numbers" is a result of the "war on drugs." Drug possession should be de-criminalized.

GE Morton wrote: ↑August 12th, 2019, 6:32 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 12th, 2019, 4:14 pm
The US isn't suffering from a reluctance to incarcerate large numbers of criminals for lengthy periods of time so you'll have to look elsewhere to explain the high murder rate

The median stay in state prisons in the US is 1.3 years. Persons serving less than one year in state prison represented 40% of first releases in 2016.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf

The "large numbers" is a result of the "war on drugs." Drug possession should be de-criminalized.

While your comments have merit on their own, they don't counter my point.

GE Morton wrote:That is also true in the US. Not many convicted murderers commit murder after being released, largely because they will have served quite long sentences and are older. But most of them will have committed numerous previous offenses short of murder, which should have taken them off the streets years earlier.

So, given the high rates of recidivism that you have cited earlier, one way to dramatically reduce the incidence of crime generally would simply be to punish any crime at all, of any severity, with life imprisonment. Should we do that? If not, how should we decide the lengths of sentences appropriate to any given type of crime?

The US already imprisons, at any given moment, a very large proportion of its population compared to many other countries. But your view appears to be that although this is true it is not the number of people imprisoned that is the issue but the lengths of the sentences - "the revolving door". Could you envisage an increase in the lengths of sentences but actually a decrease in the number of people in prison at any given moment? Or would an increase in sentence lengths inevitably result (as one would intuitively expect) in an even larger proportion of the population behind bars?

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 12th, 2019, 4:14 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑August 11th, 2019, 7:56 pm

That is also true in the US. Not many convicted murderers commit murder after being released, largely because they will have served quite long sentences and are older. But most of them will have committed numerous previous offenses short of murder, which should have taken them off the streets years earlier.

The US isn't suffering from a reluctance to incarcerate large numbers of criminals for lengthy periods of time so you'll have to look elsewhere to explain the high murder rate

Much imprisonment and high murder rate are mutual effects of one cause: failure to deal with the cause of crime.

Some law makers are simplistically punitive. Short term financial gains for the few seems to be the main motive of the political right.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 5:03 am
So, given the high rates of recidivism that you have cited earlier, one way to dramatically reduce the incidence of crime generally would simply be to punish any crime at all, of any severity, with life imprisonment. Should we do that?

Not "any crime at all," only certain felonies. Until 1984 my state (Washington) had a habitual criminal law. Upon conviction for a second offense for any felony the defendant must serve a minimum of 10 years in prison. For a third offense he would be sentenced for life.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.92.090

That law should be resurrected, but non-violent drug offenses excluded as qualifying felonies.

If not, how should we decide the lengths of sentences appropriate to any given type of crime?

Good question. The "restitution model" provides an answer. Per that model, following conviction a restitution hearing is held, in which the losses or damages inflicted upon all victims (computed per ordinary civil court rules), plus the costs to the state to investigate, apprehend, and try the defendant are calculated. The defendant is then sentenced, not to a conventional prison, but to a work center, where he will be compelled to work at some task for which he is qualified and paid at market rates, with most of his wages withheld to pay for his room and board and to satisfy the restitution obligation determined at the hearing. He is confined until that obligation has been paid in full.

The seminal paper on this concept is here:

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

The US already imprisons, at any given moment, a very large proportion of its population compared to many other countries. But your view appears to be that although this is true it is not the number of people imprisoned that is the issue but the lengths of the sentences - "the revolving door". Could you envisage an increase in the lengths of sentences but actually a decrease in the number of people in prison at any given moment? Or would an increase in sentence lengths inevitably result (as one would intuitively expect) in an even larger proportion of the population behind bars?

Theoretically longer prison sentences will have a stronger deterrent effect than shorter ones, and crime rates (and thus incarceration rates) will fall. But the deterrent effects of criminal sentencing are controversial. No prescribed punishment (the argument goes) will deter a person who "lives in the moment" and is not in the habit, or is not capable, of assessing the risks of his acts. So what deterrent effect such a change might have remains to be seen. But we know longer sentences will reduce the crime rate, simply because there will be fewer criminals on the streets.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 6:23 am
Much imprisonment and high murder rate are mutual effects of one cause: failure to deal with the cause of crime.

Crime doesn't have causes, any more than does any other human behavior. It has motives, as does all other human behavior. No one inquires as to what caused Alfie to go to a movie last night, or what caused him to donate to an animal shelter. We ask what motivated him to do so; what goals or interests he sought to satisfy. We might also ask what alternatives were available to him and what constraints restricted him in that choice situation.

A review of the "3 Strikes" Law by the ACLU -- https://bit.ly/2dbgqA1

The final paragraph reads:
"The "3 Strikes" proposals are based on the mistaken belief that focusing on an offender after the crime has been committed, which harsh sentencing schemes do, will lead to a reduction in the crime rate. But if 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, something must be done to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place.

Today, the U.S. has the dubious distinction of leading the industrialized world in per capita prison population, with more than one million men and women behind bars. The typical inmate in our prisons is minority, male, young and uneducated. More than 40 percent of inmates are illiterate; one-third were unemployed when arrested. This profile should tell us something important about the link between crime and lack of opportunity, between crime and lack of hope.

Only when we begin to deal with the conditions that cause so many of our young people to turn to crime and violence will we begin to realize a less crime ridden society."

Felix wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 4:55 pm
Only when we begin to deal with the conditions that cause so many of our young people to turn to crime and violence will we begin to realize a less crime ridden society."

A lefty trope, and an especially egregious example of equating correlation with causation.

"The typical inmate in our prisons is minority, male, young and uneducated. More than 40 percent of inmates are illiterate; one-third were unemployed when arrested. This profile should tell us something important about the link between crime and lack of opportunity, between crime and lack of hope."

Yes, there is a link. But is not the lack of education and the resulting unemployment that "causes" the crime. Certain traits, behavioral propensities, whether innate or culturally conditioned, endemic within that population underlie both the disinterest in education, the resulting poverty, and the crime.

"But if 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, something must be done to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place."

Yes. What must be done is make sure those arrested for the 3rd time are removed from the community permanently. That will cut the crime rate by more than half.

GE Morton: A lefty trope,

If by "lefty" you mean not racist, like your view, than that's true.

and an especially egregious example of equating correlation with causation.

Yes, your racist ideology is certainly indicative of that.

GE Morton wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 6:45 pm

Felix wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 4:55 pm
Only when we begin to deal with the conditions that cause so many of our young people to turn to crime and violence will we begin to realize a less crime ridden society."

A lefty trope, and an especially egregious example of equating correlation with causation.

"The typical inmate in our prisons is minority, male, young and uneducated. More than 40 percent of inmates are illiterate; one-third were unemployed when arrested. This profile should tell us something important about the link between crime and lack of opportunity, between crime and lack of hope."

Yes, there is a link. But is not the lack of education and the resulting unemployment that "causes" the crime. Certain traits, behavioral propensities, whether innate or culturally conditioned, endemic within that population underlie both the disinterest in education, the resulting poverty, and the crime.

"But if 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, something must be done to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place."

Yes. What must be done is make sure those arrested for the 3rd time are removed from the community permanently. That will cut the crime rate by more than half.

Are you implying that those traits in other populations doesn't cause crime? If so your "causes" aren't very causal.

GE Morton wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 10:54 am

Belindi wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 6:23 am
Much imprisonment and high murder rate are mutual effects of one cause: failure to deal with the cause of crime.

Crime doesn't have causes, any more than does any other human behavior. It has motives, as does all other human behavior. No one inquires as to what caused Alfie to go to a movie last night, or what caused him to donate to an animal shelter. We ask what motivated him to do so; what goals or interests he sought to satisfy. We might also ask what alternatives were available to him and what constraints restricted him in that choice situation.

You think motives aren't causes? True, all causes are not motives. True to say all motives are causes. Also true to say all motives are effects of causes.

GE Morton:

A lefty trope, and an especially egregious example of equating correlation with causation.

Correlations are statistical devices and are not the same as empirical evidence. There is a lot of empirical evidence that poverty and bad government together cause much criminal behaviour. I read a story in the paper this morning about that very theme.