Prison

[Jazzy]

What is prison good for? Where do you draw the line between punishment and rehabilitation?

 

[Lamb]

Prison is good for stopping people from harming others when they can't stop themselves. Rehabilitation...I'm not so sure it works on most criminals. I wonder what the percentage is for repeat offenders?

 

[tango]

What is prison good for? Where do you draw the line between punishment and rehabilitation?

Prison is partly about punishing the offender and partly about protecting society from the offender.

Rehabilitation needs to be part of the process but it's pointless to try and effect rehabilitation until the offender is ready to be rehabilitated. There's not a lot of point taking someone off the streets, subjecting them to the loss of their liberty as a punishment and then simply releasing them back into society with no way to earn a living - if they can't get a job because of their time in prison and can't get a place to live because they just got out of prison it hardly takes a genius to figure they're going to go straight back to crime even if only to survive. And if you're committing crimes just to survive you might as well commit a few more and live well.

 

[Stravinsk]

Prison is good for locking up the average Joe for possessing / distributing / using whatever substance the government deems immoral to keep them hooked on the legal "safe" drugs like deadly alcohol and tobacco which can be taxed and at the same time providing the court system (and the tax system) with needed revenue. Prison is not good for government personnel who run illicit drugs out of the CIA though.

IMO the only people that need prison are those that break a commandment esp where it hurts another individual or group of individuals. The greatest criminals start wars with lies and perpetuate murder with them.

 

[ValleyGal]

I find it interesting that some (all?) of the states have life or death sentences for people who have murdered someone, when the research says the chances of a murderer re-offending for violent crime is less than 3%, and there is research in California cited here:

"Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period. Out of those 988, she said 1 percent were arrested for new crimes, and 10 percent were arrested for violating parole. She found none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined.

'That's the lowest recidivism rate. That's unheard of," Mullane said. "In 20 years, the chance of you being returned on another murder was zero.'"

That captured only a 20 year period only in California, but given other extremely low stats, it isn't a stretch to generalize with a margin of error. Each participant spent no less than 20 years in prison and were very good at convincing parole board members to release them after "only" 20 years.

It is actually that much safer to release murderers over people who commit property crime, and yet for property crimes with $2,000-$10,000 damage, it's punishable by up to only five years. Over $10,000 damage is punishable by up to ten years. Those who commit property crime are the most likely to re-offend, with 77% recidivism.

All that to say that prisons are little more than a campaign tool for politicians to win public approval by getting tough on murderers and violent criminals because they play on the public's need for a sense of safety, even if that is a false sense of safety. Sure, they hope that a little prison time deters the criminal from re-offending, but they already know they will. In addition, prisons are set up so that people will fail. Prisons, corrections, justice systems are big money-makers, employ a lot of people and appease the public (in the US, anyway. In Canada, they are publicly funded and the government wants to keep employing all those people who pay high taxes from their high incomes, so they set people up to fail). Social structure is set up deliberately to keep people within the station of life into which they are born. There are rags-to-riches exceptions but only to give the poor and common folks "hope."

 

[tango]

All that to say that prisons are little more than a campaign tool for politicians to win public approval by getting tough on murderers and violent criminals because they play on the public's need for a sense of safety, even if that is a false sense of safety. Sure, they hope that a little prison time deters the criminal from re-offending, but they already know they will. In addition, prisons are set up so that people will fail. Prisons, corrections, justice systems are big money-makers, employ a lot of people and appease the public (in the US, anyway. In Canada, they are publicly funded and the government wants to keep employing all those people who pay high taxes from their high incomes, so they set people up to fail). Social structure is set up deliberately to keep people within the station of life into which they are born. There are rags-to-riches exceptions but only to give the poor and common folks "hope."

I think in general what governments do best is propose solutions to problems they created, and act as if there is no other solution that doesn't involve the government getting involved and taking more control. Then when their newfangled approach invariably fails (as it usually must, given it was broken from the start and anyone with half a brain could see it would fail) they position themselves as the only ones who can solve the problem.

The varying stages of problem and solution might flip-flop between governments of different stripes but the underlying problem remains much the same.

 

[Albion]

All that to say that prisons are little more than a campaign tool for politicians to win public approval by getting tough on murderers and violent criminals because they play on the public's need for a sense of safety, even if that is a false sense of safety.

Well, it isn't a false sense of security for law-abiding citizens if death or a lifetime of incarceration is what awaits the person who is convicted of murdering someone.

Sure, they hope that a little prison time deters the criminal from re-offending, but they already know they will.

In the case of petty and many nonviolent crimes, your point here is worth studying. But for murder, which you were also talking about, it's a totally different matter.

There is no question but that the knowledge of what awaits a person who might commit a murder--but hasn't yet done so--does reduce the instances of that crime being committed.

 

[tango]

Well, it isn't a false sense of security for law-abiding citizens if death or a lifetime of incarceration is what awaits the person who is convicted of murdering someone.

I would agree that it isn't a false sense of security for the law-abiding, although a lot would depend on the exact circumstances. The person who just goes and kills someone, apparently at random, is the sort of person it is rational to be concerned about. The person who planned and executed a murder of a specific person for a specific reason is less likely to be a threat to society as a whole.

In the case of petty and many nonviolent crimes, your point here is worth studying. But for murder, which you were also talking about, it's a totally different matter.

There is no question but that the knowledge of what awaits a person who might commit a murder--but hasn't yet done so--does reduce the instances of that crime being committed.

Up to a point it may reduce the likelihood that the crime will be committed in the first place. When homicide is placed on a scale with crimes of passion at one end (i.e. killing in the heat of the moment), and coldly planned and premeditated murder at the other end, it's interesting to see which crimes may be prevented by a high probability of life in prison.

Crimes of passion, committed in the heat of the moment, are unlikely to be reduced by a significant amount. If the heat of the moment is so intense you go through with killing someone the chances are you aren't really thinking about the legal consequences of what is unfolding.

At the other end the legal system presents little more than an obstacle course of technicalities and evidence gathering, making it more likely that a coldly planned murder will be planned for a little longer to make it less detectable, or to frame someone else for the murder.

If we push a little further, it seems fairly commonplace that perpetrators of mass shootings either end their rampage by actively killing themselves, or passively ending it all in what is known as "suicide by cop", where the police are given little option but to shoot the perpetrator. When someone isn't expecting to leave their crime scene alive they are unlikely to care about the legality of what they are doing and figure the more people they take out the more media coverage they will receive.

If I recall at least part of what drove the man to kill John Lennon was that he was an unknown, and by killing someone very well known he would become well known. It's just one reason why it would be good to avoid flooding the media with coverage every time someone goes on a rampage.

 

[Albion]

Up to a point it may reduce the likelihood that the crime will be committed in the first place.

Certainly, And that would be better than treating these offenses like we do parking violations, no?

When homicide is placed on a scale with crimes of passion at one end (i.e. killing in the heat of the moment), and coldly planned and premeditated murder at the other end, it's interesting to see which crimes may be prevented by a high probability of life in prison.

I do not contend that such crimes will be "prevented" by strong punishments.

What I was saying was that stern punishments such as those under discussion in ValleyGal's post, DO, yes, provide a degree of reassurance and protection for the law-abiding people in society.

Even though we all know that the death penalty or life sentences cannot absolutely eliminate murders, such punishments are not just another of the tricks politicians use in order to fool a gullible public.

 

[tango]

Certainly, And that would be better than treating these offenses like we do parking violations, no?

Yes, to the extent that the fear of punishment actually deters the crime.

I do not contend that such crimes will be "prevented" by strong punishments.

What I was saying was that stern punishments such as those under discussion in ValleyGal's post, DO, yes, provide a degree of reassurance and protection for the law-abiding people in society.

I'm not sure how it provides much reassurance and protection, to know that someone who does something incredibly bad will be locked up after the fact. It doesn't do much to help the victim and I'm not always sure how it helps me feel safe knowing that nothing will be done to actively protect my life but some police resources will be allocated in the hope of taking away someone's freedom after they already killed me.

Even though we all know that the death penalty or life sentences cannot absolutely eliminate murders, such punishments are not just another of the tricks politicians use in order to fool a gullible public.

I have to admit I sometimes wonder. I know this is the sort of thing that derails threads but when there's any doubt at all about my right to protect my life, using whatever force and measures are at my disposal (and that potentially means guns) in the "right here, right now" when faced with a mortal threat it's really very hard to take anything politicians say seriously if they claim to care about my safety. If you care about my safety let me protect myself in the time between the emergency call and the police actually showing up.

 

[Albion]

Yes, to the extent that the fear of punishment actually deters the crime.

I agree. And there is no doubt that fear of punishment does deter crime, bearing in mind that that also depends on the nature of the particular crime, what the punishment is, and how likely it is to be applied to the violator. Obviously, a $20 overtime parking ticket doesn't deter as well as a jail sentence, etc.

If we doubt this concept, we need only look at the change in some of our big cities over the past few years when defunding the police has made some inroads, hundreds of policemen have quit the service out of fear of being ambushed. and the famously frustrating "revolving door' treatment of criminals by the courts has become epidemic.

I'm not sure how it provides much reassurance and protection, to know that someone who does something incredibly bad will be locked up after the fact.

I cannot imagine thinking that it would NOT! Most people learn that if you put your hand on a hot stove,. you get burned, and they therefore respond by not putting their hands on the hot stove.

They also knew very well as kids what "wait til your father gets home!" meant and adjusted their behavior accordingly.

It doesn't do much to help the victim

It certainly does--if it increases his chances of not becoming the victim in the first place. That's why "deterrence" was part of this discussion.

and I'm not always sure how it helps me feel safe knowing that nothing will be done to actively protect my life....

That's just the point I was referring to above. The issue is not merely about punishing the wrongdoer for having done wrong. It's about deterring crime and, consequently, preserving the rights and wellbeing of potential victims.

 

[ValleyGal]

There is no question but that the knowledge of what awaits a person who might commit a murder--but hasn't yet done so--does reduce the instances of that crime being committed.

Nothing is going to prevent a crime that hasn't yet been committed. People are going to do what they are going to do. If someone is premeditating, a likely jail sentence isn't going to stop them, and for a crime of passion, it happens in the heat of the moment and at that point, they aren't thinking about the possibility of going to jail and weighing out their behaviour.

The person who just goes and kills someone, apparently at random, is the sort of person it is rational to be concerned about. The person who planned and executed a murder of a specific person for a specific reason is less likely to be a threat to society as a whole.

A person who goes about randomly killing people is either a serial killer (premeditated) or on a rampage (crime of passion) and as mentioned is likely to end up in suicide. If they do end up caught alive and go to jail, how likely is it that they will get released and do the same crime? According to stats, they could be part of that 3%. That 3% is much lower than a sexual assault recidivism rate of about 65%. The public is much safer with a murderer being released than a sexual predator being released.

Well, it isn't a false sense of security for law-abiding citizens if death or a lifetime of incarceration is what awaits the person who is convicted of murdering someone.

The stats say that it is a false sense of security, law-abiding or not. The public is safer with a murderer among them than with a sexual predator among them. It's similar for assault and property crimes. So why should the public feel safer with them as opposed to a murderer? Especially given that far, far more people are convicted of sexual assault, physical assault and property crimes compared to a handful of people convicted of murder.

Interestingly, in Canada at least, people who have committed violent crimes who do recidivate, are likely to commit crimes of less severity than the first one:
"According to a 2019 CSC (Correction Services Canada) study, 23% of a 2011/2012 cohort of federal offenders re-offended, compared to 32% of offenders from a 2007/2008 cohort. ... In addition, 12% of the 2011/2012 cohort re-offended with a violent offence, compared to 18% from the 2007/2008 cohort. Of those who re-offended, 60% were charged with a new offence of a lesser severity."

Keep in mind that is "federal offenders" which includes more than people who murder. The list of indictable offences includes things like robbery, extortion, assault 1, sex assault 1, arson, counterfeiting, etc.

Bottom line for me is that I am far less secure with non-murderers on the outside than with murderers; they are least likely to re-offend unless they are serial killers - and they are only serial killers until they get caught and likely won't ever get a chance to re-offend as release is unlikely.

 

[Lees]

What is prison good for?

Nothing.

Lees