If Prisoners Ran Prisons(themarshallproject.org)
themarshallproject.org
If Prisoners Ran Prisons
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/10/23/if-prisoners-ran-prisons#.xm20Sygvd
211 comments
I call prison "criminal university". It's just fucking stupid.
We get a whole bunch of violent / profession criminals together so they can learn from each other and build their networks. Then brand them as criminals so they can't get a job when they come out, thus ensuring they reoffend. Oh and we incarcerate for non violent crimes, so entry level criminals have the opportunity to learn from the best and progress their career.
We get a whole bunch of violent / profession criminals together so they can learn from each other and build their networks. Then brand them as criminals so they can't get a job when they come out, thus ensuring they reoffend. Oh and we incarcerate for non violent crimes, so entry level criminals have the opportunity to learn from the best and progress their career.
I don't see how you can have a humane prison not be a criminal university. I mean, in the old days, they would just throw you in cell and leave you there for years. Your meals would come in through a slot in the door and you would poop and pee in a pot. No face-to-face interaction with other prisoners. No shared cells. No recreational time in open areas where you can form cliques. The only communication that happened between prisoners was via tapping or other coded acoustics.
Allowing prisoners to interact face to face in open and closed environments is going to introduce these extra complexities of prisoners "poisoning" other prisoners.
Allowing prisoners to interact face to face in open and closed environments is going to introduce these extra complexities of prisoners "poisoning" other prisoners.
"I don't see how you can have a humane prison not be a criminal university."
By having it promote positive improvement and rehabilitation rather than purely punishment.
Here is what a humane prison looks like:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35813470 http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison
By having it promote positive improvement and rehabilitation rather than purely punishment.
Here is what a humane prison looks like:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35813470 http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison
"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members" ~Pope John Paul II
By treating prisoners humanely, a society is showing how it treats those who are at the bottom rungs of it. It is a reflection on the society itself.
By treating prisoners humanely, a society is showing how it treats those who are at the bottom rungs of it. It is a reflection on the society itself.
A lot of people call those prisons "dorms" and they say that prisoners live in better conditions than a lot of people outside of prison.
And yet, they don't make the jump to the idea that maybe people shouldn't be living in worse conditions.
And yet, they don't make the jump to the idea that maybe people shouldn't be living in worse conditions.
Definitely, I am a big believer in Housing First and affordable housing by allowing high density development, as it is a viable path forward for cities and it defends suburbs from pressure to redevelop much more destructive low density redevelopment.
Ain't gonna happen.
It's a long chain of logic, but fractional reserve banking, at the levels we're seeing, prevents it.
Most of our money supply is created through debt. As a result, housing is bought through debt rather than owned. The competition for better homes drives prices astronomical. The only way to actually get affordable housing is to either move people where there is no competition (e.g. desert of Arizona), or to reduce reserve limits.
Fractional reserve banking generates trillions for big banks, and the electorate doesn't get it. It's not going away.
It's a long chain of logic, but fractional reserve banking, at the levels we're seeing, prevents it.
Most of our money supply is created through debt. As a result, housing is bought through debt rather than owned. The competition for better homes drives prices astronomical. The only way to actually get affordable housing is to either move people where there is no competition (e.g. desert of Arizona), or to reduce reserve limits.
Fractional reserve banking generates trillions for big banks, and the electorate doesn't get it. It's not going away.
I implore you to take some time and read at least one or two credible papers on the subject, because your understanding of fractional reserve banking is frankly too misinformed to unpack in the space of a forum comment. Suffice it to say I've certainly never seen any indication that removing easy availability of credit results in positive outcomes for the classes who already lack in capital. I'll include some links for you to get started at the bottom.
What can be addressed is the concept of affordable housing. Housing, to a certain degree follows a pretty tight supply and demand curve; put simply if you want affordable housing, pressure your local government to green light permits to build affordable housing[2].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_theory_of_money [2]http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-cities-see-apartment-rents-f...
What can be addressed is the concept of affordable housing. Housing, to a certain degree follows a pretty tight supply and demand curve; put simply if you want affordable housing, pressure your local government to green light permits to build affordable housing[2].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_theory_of_money [2]http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-cities-see-apartment-rents-f...
I'm getting off-topic here but can you share some resources on how low density developments are much more destructive? I'm usually very pro low density housing (and also very anti high density housing) so I'd like to have some new perspectives on this. Thanks.
Consider this: My local road takes up ~40,000 square metres of space all in (road, front yards, houses, back yards). That houses 660 families. Near the local train station they'll be housing that same amount in <2,000 square metres of high density housing.
So to handle twice the population, we could either free up ~2,000 square metres, or re-develop the entire road two have twice the density, leading to the loss of most of the single dwelling houses and private gardens.
It's not so much that low density is bad, as that not having high density takes choice away once there's no more space and you have to start increasing density anyway, often in all kinds of suboptimal ways.
So to handle twice the population, we could either free up ~2,000 square metres, or re-develop the entire road two have twice the density, leading to the loss of most of the single dwelling houses and private gardens.
It's not so much that low density is bad, as that not having high density takes choice away once there's no more space and you have to start increasing density anyway, often in all kinds of suboptimal ways.
Why can't we consider expanding to new non-developed areas in this scenario?
The main reason I'm anti high density areas is it's unhealthy: people are stressed, there's no sense of community, commerce space is scarce and extremely expensive to rent so { banks, supermarkets, estate agents } take all of them making any new commercial idea almost impossible to put through thus less employment too. I don't know much about this though, it's just my thoughts after living in very different areas and cities and how I feel about it.
The main reason I'm anti high density areas is it's unhealthy: people are stressed, there's no sense of community, commerce space is scarce and extremely expensive to rent so { banks, supermarkets, estate agents } take all of them making any new commercial idea almost impossible to put through thus less employment too. I don't know much about this though, it's just my thoughts after living in very different areas and cities and how I feel about it.
> Why can't we consider expanding to new non-developed areas in this scenario?
Because a lot of people want to keep relatively untouched nature too.
> people are stressed
I don't see any evidence that this is caused by high density living.
> there's no sense of community
Most suburban areas, in my experience, have little sense of community. Maybe small villages are different, but in the suburban areas I've lived, at most I knew my immediate neighbours. People often tend to drive too and from the places where they are involved in community activities. If anything, I feel more connected to communities that form separate from the residential areas, and there tend to be more of them in high density city centres.
> commerce space is scarce
Is it? Near me, the densest areas have plenty of available commercial units cheaply available.
More importantly: Building densely allow for far more flexibility with the rest of the space.
Because a lot of people want to keep relatively untouched nature too.
> people are stressed
I don't see any evidence that this is caused by high density living.
> there's no sense of community
Most suburban areas, in my experience, have little sense of community. Maybe small villages are different, but in the suburban areas I've lived, at most I knew my immediate neighbours. People often tend to drive too and from the places where they are involved in community activities. If anything, I feel more connected to communities that form separate from the residential areas, and there tend to be more of them in high density city centres.
> commerce space is scarce
Is it? Near me, the densest areas have plenty of available commercial units cheaply available.
More importantly: Building densely allow for far more flexibility with the rest of the space.
>people are stressed
You ever asked us?
>there's no sense of community
Says who? Ronald Reagan?
>commerce space is scarce and extremely expensive to rent so { banks, supermarkets, estate agents } take all of them making any new commercial idea almost impossible to put through thus less employment too
I guess I'll go tell all the shops and such in Davis Square that they don't exist.
You ever asked us?
>there's no sense of community
Says who? Ronald Reagan?
>commerce space is scarce and extremely expensive to rent so { banks, supermarkets, estate agents } take all of them making any new commercial idea almost impossible to put through thus less employment too
I guess I'll go tell all the shops and such in Davis Square that they don't exist.
Maybe city planners should borrow some ideas from CS, namely how to handle destructive operations while maintaining O(1) average cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_array
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_array
Not many here in Norway say that because here it is demonstrably untrue. Pretty much the only people who have to live in significantly worse conditions are illegal immigrants begging on the streets and sleeping rough.
It's not that socializing is the problem, it's that there is no enforcement -- your safety inside is guaranteed by nothing; so participation in a gang is inevitable as an outgrowth of the lack of safety.
In short, punishment should be banished away. Not banished to a certain location.
We as society wants that certain people do not live among us. But that does not imply they have to live in worst condition. So the solution, instead of prision have contained societies. Both private and public run. So then going to prision would mean relocating to one of the contained societies [1], completely upto the the "offender". In these societies they will have their own system of governence.
[1] They would also would be allowed to move to another country.
We as society wants that certain people do not live among us. But that does not imply they have to live in worst condition. So the solution, instead of prision have contained societies. Both private and public run. So then going to prision would mean relocating to one of the contained societies [1], completely upto the the "offender". In these societies they will have their own system of governence.
[1] They would also would be allowed to move to another country.
> They would also would be allowed to move to another country
If those countries are having them, that is. In medieval times banishment for the most part was equivalent to death (or turning to a life of crime as a bandit).
While a nice idea in theory, how would a contained society actually work? Prisons already are miniature societies (just generally not very humanely run ones). It'd still be a prison, albeit a larger one, wouldn't it? Worst case it'd be something like Manhattan in Escape from New York.
I'm not saying it couldn't work but it's not an easy thing to get right.
If those countries are having them, that is. In medieval times banishment for the most part was equivalent to death (or turning to a life of crime as a bandit).
While a nice idea in theory, how would a contained society actually work? Prisons already are miniature societies (just generally not very humanely run ones). It'd still be a prison, albeit a larger one, wouldn't it? Worst case it'd be something like Manhattan in Escape from New York.
I'm not saying it couldn't work but it's not an easy thing to get right.
> how would a contained society actually work?
If a society is understanding enough to have CS, it safe to expect they would also not use CS for non-violent crimes.
So now what would CS for violent criminals with no skill look like ? Ok so this would be a prision/rehabilitation-center in traditional sense but with a twist that they can also leave provided the country have them.
If a society is understanding enough to have CS, it safe to expect they would also not use CS for non-violent crimes.
So now what would CS for violent criminals with no skill look like ? Ok so this would be a prision/rehabilitation-center in traditional sense but with a twist that they can also leave provided the country have them.
That's wrong. It's false that prison was like you describe in "the old days". In fact, any statement about historical fact that begins with "in the old days", generalising wildly different realities across time and space into one short anecdotal tidbit is most certainly going to be wrong.
Take a look at humane prisons that work in other countries. If treating people humanely meant that folks learned more criminal ways, Norway would have an awful time with this. The opposite is true, however. For the most part, folks are committed to trying to make the prisoners a good neighbor upon being releases - from day 1 of being released.
What you describe - some of the prisons of the "old days" also produced ex-offenders that were seriously mentally ill. That is very easily the effect of having solitary of that sort for so many years. Even if you do wind up being able to mentally withstand the place, you get released with no knowledge of what has happened - which happens now, actually.
What you describe - some of the prisons of the "old days" also produced ex-offenders that were seriously mentally ill. That is very easily the effect of having solitary of that sort for so many years. Even if you do wind up being able to mentally withstand the place, you get released with no knowledge of what has happened - which happens now, actually.
Can you provide a source that in the "old days" all prison was solitary confinement?
Eastern State Penitentiary is considered the first "true penitentiary" Wikipedia[1] has pretty good coverage of its history, including starting with an all solitary system.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_State_Penitentiary
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_State_Penitentiary
* in the US.
We've certainly had prisons before 1829 elsewhere in the world.
We've certainly had prisons before 1829 elsewhere in the world.
Sure, there were prisons in ancient times too. I think the 1829 example may be more relevant.
Is this similar to "go to the hospital to get sick"?
Not quite. Society is still conflicted over whether prison is for punishment or rehabilitation. In the US, I think it trends mostly punishment with lip service to rehabilitation.
If you run the hospital poorly enough, that's exactly what happens.
"Poorly" seems a bit harsh. From a conceptual standpoint, hospitals are, in some sense, a terrible idea: why would you want to concentrate contagious individuals (let along concentrate them in proximity to people with unrelated sicknesses). The only reason we have hospitals is the only way we can afford to provide medical care to the population.
According to the CDC, "On any given day, about one in 25 hospital patients has at least one healthcare-associated infection. "
http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/surveillance/index.html
According to the CDC, "On any given day, about one in 25 hospital patients has at least one healthcare-associated infection. "
http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/surveillance/index.html
Thanks for your comment.
It seems that there are many unreported rapes in American prisons. When you read the real stories and how wardens don't care or enable such system, your faith in human nature is over. You realize how fucked up bureocrats are. If Americans – liberals and conservatives – truly cared about human rights they would have started a riot about such issues years ago. They set up a mass whining for the new president of US in less than 24 hours, people clearly don't care about the inhuman treatment of prisoners. Read the testimony of activist Stephen Donaldson. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-20/news/ls-60064_1_priso...
It seems that there are many unreported rapes in American prisons. When you read the real stories and how wardens don't care or enable such system, your faith in human nature is over. You realize how fucked up bureocrats are. If Americans – liberals and conservatives – truly cared about human rights they would have started a riot about such issues years ago. They set up a mass whining for the new president of US in less than 24 hours, people clearly don't care about the inhuman treatment of prisoners. Read the testimony of activist Stephen Donaldson. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-20/news/ls-60064_1_priso...
It's true. You have to look far outside of the system to find people who take prison abolition seriously. Anarchists, mostly.
Step 1 is do not look to abolish prison. When you start with such an extreme position no one is going to listen.
Considering that prisons in their current form overflowing with brutality and cruelty are an acceptable mainstream position, I'd rather not care about being extreme. If one believes that prisons as a structure inevitably lead to arbitrarily bad abuse of power, then one is for the abolition of prison.
Without prison, people would demand eye-for-an-eye justice. Without that either, people would dish it out themselves. We'd be back to lynchings.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
Lynchings were aided and abetted by the state and the prison-industrial complex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_incarceration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_incarceration
What do you propose as an alternative? No law enforcement at all?
There are many traditions of communal justice that aren't retributive. Keywords that can be googled are restorative justice and transformative justice, for example. Traditional conflict resolution still persists in areas where the reach of the state does not extend. Approaches to justice that eschew centralized authority have a very different character, and I understand that it can be difficult to come up with such examples on one's own. It requires a different approach to the problem.
In any case, prison abolition is a wide topic with a lot of point of views and I could not do any of them justice in an Internet comment. I hate referring someone to wikipedia, but all the other sources I'd cite have a distinctly leftist approach and I think wikipedia is probably the most approachable entrypoint for someone who does not already ascribe to certain ideological premises: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_incarceration
In any case, prison abolition is a wide topic with a lot of point of views and I could not do any of them justice in an Internet comment. I hate referring someone to wikipedia, but all the other sources I'd cite have a distinctly leftist approach and I think wikipedia is probably the most approachable entrypoint for someone who does not already ascribe to certain ideological premises: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_incarceration
I can't speak for OP, but I'd think Anarchists can swing to both extremes. Self defense is not the same as enforcing a dictated law. This is reduction ad absurdum, but still worth thinking about. IMHO, anarchy is not an alternative to other rules, it's the foundation of free will, the empty set that is part of every other set. Of course, anarchism as a label is used with a different message.
I've never been to prison but when I read this article I feel despondent. Here are people asking for some really tiny, minor things. The whole argument is predicated on the idea that prison is about rehabilitation. It's not. Prison is about destroying people. Punishing them for having the audacity to exist after revealing the fact that their identity does not fit the dominant narrative.
I am fundamentally opposed to prison in all but the most extreme cases. I also happen to believe a bunch of other things that would also see me branded as a radical by society, but I digress. Prison is fundamentally destructive as an institution. It is slavery by another name and it must be dismantled, though I don't know how we begin the process.
I am fundamentally opposed to prison in all but the most extreme cases. I also happen to believe a bunch of other things that would also see me branded as a radical by society, but I digress. Prison is fundamentally destructive as an institution. It is slavery by another name and it must be dismantled, though I don't know how we begin the process.
> Punishing them for having the audacity to exist after revealing the fact that their identity does not fit the dominant narrative.
So under that sweeping generalization, you consider rape and murder equivalent to, say, coming out as homosexual??
Reform is necessary, but you can't just boil everything down into apologetics of "institutional discrimination against the morally-impaired."
So under that sweeping generalization, you consider rape and murder equivalent to, say, coming out as homosexual??
Reform is necessary, but you can't just boil everything down into apologetics of "institutional discrimination against the morally-impaired."
> though I don't know how we begin the process.
Its political, and at least in the US, it traces its roots back to corruption and how unrepresentative the US government is of its citizens.
If you want to fix almost all societal problems, you first need a system of government that fears and respects its people. I don't care which permutation of state you pick, but if you want a government to care what you say, it has to care about its people.
Most countries have that problem. Its less overbearing because most European states have better implementations of near the same parliamentary system, but even those governments are often too centralized and too easily corrupted, and that breeds an unrepresentative state.
Making a government that acts in the will of its people is absolutely step one to fixing the problems it causes. Then you just need to persuade the people and thus the representatives to change it.
Its political, and at least in the US, it traces its roots back to corruption and how unrepresentative the US government is of its citizens.
If you want to fix almost all societal problems, you first need a system of government that fears and respects its people. I don't care which permutation of state you pick, but if you want a government to care what you say, it has to care about its people.
Most countries have that problem. Its less overbearing because most European states have better implementations of near the same parliamentary system, but even those governments are often too centralized and too easily corrupted, and that breeds an unrepresentative state.
Making a government that acts in the will of its people is absolutely step one to fixing the problems it causes. Then you just need to persuade the people and thus the representatives to change it.
There is no reason to believe that harsh prison systems are representative of the will of the people. In the 1990s, three strikes laws in California were enacted by public referendum. The margin was 3-1. 75% of people voted to put people in prison for life for three felonies--and they didn't even have to be violent felonies. And it was one of the most liberal states in the country!
It should be noted that the CA three strikes law was also weakened to only encompass "serious" or violent felonies in 2012 - also by public referendum.
As Bryan Stevenson says, a person is more than the worst mistake they've made. The inhumanity of American prisons is reprehensible, and limits the potential of our most vulnerable populations. Imagine if Obama has been imprisoned for smoking a joint in his really years. Is that moment of indiscretion worth voiding a whole life?
For those interested in keeping up with our contributing to the effort to fix the US prison system, please check out the Ella Baker center, http://ellabakercenter.org. Started by Van Jones twenty years ago, they've been on the forefront of resisting unnecessary prison expansions, reducing the rate at which juveniles are put in prison, and more.
For those interested in keeping up with our contributing to the effort to fix the US prison system, please check out the Ella Baker center, http://ellabakercenter.org. Started by Van Jones twenty years ago, they've been on the forefront of resisting unnecessary prison expansions, reducing the rate at which juveniles are put in prison, and more.
prison is inhuman punishment. it doesn't stop or correct crime. and in return causes huge social problems.
You are right. Because these same people, are released in 5-10-20 years and are then someone's neighbor.
Rarely any job skills to speak of.
Often very little in the way of education or resources to improve.
So the end result 80-90% of the time is to resort to the familiar crowd and routine.
Rarely any job skills to speak of.
Often very little in the way of education or resources to improve.
So the end result 80-90% of the time is to resort to the familiar crowd and routine.
We need to bring Exile back. That and death sentances federally.
It seems USA is hell bent on turning into the very thing it once despised...
It is largely the poor and uneducated people who go to prison.
They don't just "go to prison", that demographic commits crimes that send them to prison.
Exile to where? Alaska?
Not the worst idea ever: it's large, inhospitable and the climate is not especially conducive to layabouts (although the long winter darkness would probably be well-correlated to depression and violence).
We could try mars. We just send more and more in batches with resources. Until they start dying off in too large a quantity.
Hey, if it worked for the Americas and Australia.
Hey, if it worked for the Americas and Australia.
There would be a perverse irony in Trump sending American murderers and rapists to Mexico.
You get to pick. Then we drop you off with a helicopter.
Worse: Delaware
I agree with you. Prison as punishment is senseless.
We have two options. We insulate the person indefinitely or we condition the person for possible return into the society.
My understanding is that we should only accept solitary confinement where the prisoner does not have any contact with other prisoners but has a constant concealing by professionals and does have other conditions to maintain its decency.
We have two options. We insulate the person indefinitely or we condition the person for possible return into the society.
My understanding is that we should only accept solitary confinement where the prisoner does not have any contact with other prisoners but has a constant concealing by professionals and does have other conditions to maintain its decency.
For some things it is certainly important.
If someone is a known murderer, what would you do? You have to section that person off somehow. Regardless of what you call that sectioning it is a prison.
> If someone is a known murderer, what would you do? You have to section that person off somehow.
That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. Do you know how likely a known murderer is to commit any offense, much less another murder? Researchers spend a lot of effort into trying to figure that out, here's a quote[0] from one such paper:
> Our study indicates that it is a misconception that homicide offenders released after long-term incarceration are hardly ever involved in violent crimes upon release. This misconception stems from several studies that have found that homicide offenders rarely re-offend with a second homicide. After analyzing a large volume of data, our study found that none of the 336 released homicide offenders committed another homicide, but approximately one-third of both the felony homicide offenders and general altercation precipitated homicide offenders do re-offend with new violent or drug offenses.
> Additionally, homicide is not a homogeneous behavior. Homicide perpetrators are not the same in terms of motivation, environmental factors, demographics, and interpersonal dynamics. Different factors of complex combinations precipitate homicides that range from felony murders in the midst of an armed robbery to murders involving sex, love, and emotion, and murders for money and property to murders because of drug use and alcohol consumption
[0] - http://www.newjersey.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Amon...
I don't profess to know the answer of the underlying question - how you should "deal" with criminals. But reading that study, none of the factors that lead to recidivism are treated in prison(alcohol, drug addiction), some are actually exacerbated(poor economical situation, low education).
That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. Do you know how likely a known murderer is to commit any offense, much less another murder? Researchers spend a lot of effort into trying to figure that out, here's a quote[0] from one such paper:
> Our study indicates that it is a misconception that homicide offenders released after long-term incarceration are hardly ever involved in violent crimes upon release. This misconception stems from several studies that have found that homicide offenders rarely re-offend with a second homicide. After analyzing a large volume of data, our study found that none of the 336 released homicide offenders committed another homicide, but approximately one-third of both the felony homicide offenders and general altercation precipitated homicide offenders do re-offend with new violent or drug offenses.
> Additionally, homicide is not a homogeneous behavior. Homicide perpetrators are not the same in terms of motivation, environmental factors, demographics, and interpersonal dynamics. Different factors of complex combinations precipitate homicides that range from felony murders in the midst of an armed robbery to murders involving sex, love, and emotion, and murders for money and property to murders because of drug use and alcohol consumption
[0] - http://www.newjersey.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Amon...
I don't profess to know the answer of the underlying question - how you should "deal" with criminals. But reading that study, none of the factors that lead to recidivism are treated in prison(alcohol, drug addiction), some are actually exacerbated(poor economical situation, low education).
You're conflating homicide and murder. Legally there are many types of homicides. The manslaughter types are already sentenced less because as you point out they are less likely to occur again. I agree with your points, but wanted to note that the law already has some framework to deal with the differences.
> re-offend with new violent or drug offenses.
Putting drug offenses in there kind of makes those numbers pointless.
Putting drug offenses in there kind of makes those numbers pointless.
"knowing" someone is a murderer is actually quite difficult with all the recent discoveries of "junk science" that have historically been used to prove guilt.
As an outsider I always just assumed those who ran prisons and designed them wanted them to be set up that way.
On the other hand I always assumed it's due to short-term thinking and incentives misalignment. Incarceration is a quick way to quarantine criminals and fill the need for justice of the offended. A person who ends up in prison (especially the high-security one) is likely to be away for many, many years - at which point what happens when they're released is someone else's problem. Humans are good at dealing with distant consequences in the abstract, but extremely poor at it in practice. So prisons are what they are by default.
Of course there are other issues at play too. For instance, a prison can't be too nice, lest it turns into a free vocational school and people will find committing crimes and getting caught to be an excellent way to get education. Or another example - you can't really make prisoners do useful work for the society (as opposed to just rotting in their cells), because it disrupts the market economy and becomes a powerful force for administrators to threaten their local communities ("do X, or else I unleash my 300+ strong force of unpaid workers and drive you out of market").
The more I think about prisons, the more I see it's a very convoluted issue, and there isn't any obvious, simple solution.
Of course there are other issues at play too. For instance, a prison can't be too nice, lest it turns into a free vocational school and people will find committing crimes and getting caught to be an excellent way to get education. Or another example - you can't really make prisoners do useful work for the society (as opposed to just rotting in their cells), because it disrupts the market economy and becomes a powerful force for administrators to threaten their local communities ("do X, or else I unleash my 300+ strong force of unpaid workers and drive you out of market").
The more I think about prisons, the more I see it's a very convoluted issue, and there isn't any obvious, simple solution.
> For instance, a prison can't be too nice, lest it turns into a free vocational school and people will find committing crimes and getting caught to be an excellent way to get education.
If this turns out to be a serious problem then perhaps your society has other issues it should be dealing with?
'Nice' prisons certainly seem to work pretty well in Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-pr...
If this turns out to be a serious problem then perhaps your society has other issues it should be dealing with?
'Nice' prisons certainly seem to work pretty well in Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-pr...
A number of years ago around 2006 I read a story of a man in his 60s that went into a bank, handed a teller a note to not be scared, put some cash in a bag, and that he won't hurt her. She complied, and he sat on the floor and waited for police to arrive. He wanted to go to prison and was committing a felony because he couldn't find a job, social security wasn't enough, he couldn't qualify for disability, he couldn't afford healthcare, and he had run out of options for housing now that the bank had foreclosed on his house.
Something is wrong when people are finding the idea of an institution meant to punish people a better life than living in our "free" society that people keep insisting is the best country in the history of the world.
Something is wrong when people are finding the idea of an institution meant to punish people a better life than living in our "free" society that people keep insisting is the best country in the history of the world.
> If this turns out to be a serious problem then perhaps your society has other issues it should be dealing with?
Of course! Which makes the whole thing even more difficult, because now instead of dealing with issues in isolation, you have to untangle the complex web of interdependencies.
Of course! Which makes the whole thing even more difficult, because now instead of dealing with issues in isolation, you have to untangle the complex web of interdependencies.
The "easiest" fix to this issue would be fixing education. If it's generally easy/inexpensive to get a good education for every citizen (e.g. via a taxation based social contract) that particular incentive goes away. Different societies have different positions on this. I'm generally very much in the "less government please" camp but for certain areas where there's a potential for multiplier effects or where more equality of opportunity is very likely to have a positive effect on society as a whole (education, health, justice, possibly defense etc.) I don't mind tax-based measures to provide more equality.
Norway is an extreme monoculture with low population sitting on oil reserves. They have so much money per capita, they end up being fine no matter what stuff they do. It doesn't mean their "solutions" work elsewhere, especially in gang infested areas.
Nor does it mean that their ideas aren't worth considering. Sweden for instance has a much larger population, much larger land area, more natural resources (except the oil of course) and more industry. Yet they have a bigger problem with crime and concentrations of poorly integrated immigrants.
Both are Scandinavian counties with a lot of shared history and are both commonly regarded as 'monocultures' yet they have noticeably different social problems. It seems plausible that some of the differences could be traced to different government policies.
And, anyway, no one believes that you can just transplant policies, but even when you cannot just copy you can still learn.
Lastly, we don't end up being fine whatever we do; the stability of Norwegian society has a lot to do with the state of mind that led to the establishment of the oil fund that ensures that the money from the oil is not squandered (like it was in the UK). The general population is broadly supportive of this and the ideas of self reliance, individual and collective responsibility, and assistance for those in need permeate the culture here. No I don't believe it is perfect here, we still have a long way to go, and we must stay vigilant to ensure that the good that we have is preserved and the bad continually rooted out.
Both are Scandinavian counties with a lot of shared history and are both commonly regarded as 'monocultures' yet they have noticeably different social problems. It seems plausible that some of the differences could be traced to different government policies.
And, anyway, no one believes that you can just transplant policies, but even when you cannot just copy you can still learn.
Lastly, we don't end up being fine whatever we do; the stability of Norwegian society has a lot to do with the state of mind that led to the establishment of the oil fund that ensures that the money from the oil is not squandered (like it was in the UK). The general population is broadly supportive of this and the ideas of self reliance, individual and collective responsibility, and assistance for those in need permeate the culture here. No I don't believe it is perfect here, we still have a long way to go, and we must stay vigilant to ensure that the good that we have is preserved and the bad continually rooted out.
> For instance, a prison can't be too nice, lest it turns into a free vocational school and people will find committing crimes and getting caught to be an excellent way to get education.
That particular problem seems technically easy to solve (politically is another matter, of course). Just let people volunteer to go to prison without actually committing a crime, and make sure they are informed of other options at that interview. We could use the rate at which people do this as a measure of other poverty assistance efforts, and the reasons for doing it to design new efforts.
> Or another example - you can't really make prisoners do useful work for the society (as opposed to just rotting in their cells), because it disrupts the market economy and becomes a powerful force for administrators to threaten their local communities ("do X, or else I unleash my 300+ strong force of unpaid workers and drive you out of market").
You can if you can arrange for the prisoners to be paid at market rate for such things -- though I not only admit, but want to emphasize that this is easier said than done.
That particular problem seems technically easy to solve (politically is another matter, of course). Just let people volunteer to go to prison without actually committing a crime, and make sure they are informed of other options at that interview. We could use the rate at which people do this as a measure of other poverty assistance efforts, and the reasons for doing it to design new efforts.
> Or another example - you can't really make prisoners do useful work for the society (as opposed to just rotting in their cells), because it disrupts the market economy and becomes a powerful force for administrators to threaten their local communities ("do X, or else I unleash my 300+ strong force of unpaid workers and drive you out of market").
You can if you can arrange for the prisoners to be paid at market rate for such things -- though I not only admit, but want to emphasize that this is easier said than done.
> For instance, a prison can't be too nice, lest it turns into a free vocational school and people will find committing crimes and getting caught to be an excellent way to get education.
Because heaven forbid we provide free education, vocational or otherwise. /s
EDIT: Sorry, that was snarky. But i agree with a sibling post that apparently Norway is doing alright with their approach. I'd rather see someone going to prison as a failing of society, and consider the cost of incarceration one that society should bear as a result, with the hope of re-integrating the person.
But i do understand your sentiment, i agree with the incentive misalignment.
Because heaven forbid we provide free education, vocational or otherwise. /s
EDIT: Sorry, that was snarky. But i agree with a sibling post that apparently Norway is doing alright with their approach. I'd rather see someone going to prison as a failing of society, and consider the cost of incarceration one that society should bear as a result, with the hope of re-integrating the person.
But i do understand your sentiment, i agree with the incentive misalignment.
My point was that while free education is great (and I did benefit from such in my country), you shouldn't have to commit a crime as a part of an entrance exam...
> need for justice of the offended
"need for justice" makes it looks like it's a normal and even healthy thing.
Many people outside of the US are horrified at the thought families of murder victims going to watch the execution of the perpetrator.
Desire to see the perpetrator suffer is called revenge and is seen by many as a psychological problem in the victims that need therapy and healing.
"need for justice" makes it looks like it's a normal and even healthy thing.
Many people outside of the US are horrified at the thought families of murder victims going to watch the execution of the perpetrator.
Desire to see the perpetrator suffer is called revenge and is seen by many as a psychological problem in the victims that need therapy and healing.
On the other hand, it can be equally traumatizing for the victim's family to see the perpetrator get off with a slap on the wrist.
We don't have to go into the extremes either way.
Also, the desire for punishment is is not about seeing the perpetrator suffer, but about paying for the damage they've done. If someone bumps your car, would you describe the desire for the guilty party to pay for the damages to be a mental illness?
We don't have to go into the extremes either way.
Also, the desire for punishment is is not about seeing the perpetrator suffer, but about paying for the damage they've done. If someone bumps your car, would you describe the desire for the guilty party to pay for the damages to be a mental illness?
What do you mean with "pay"? If you mean restitution, that's entirely different than punishment.
I'm sorry.
What can (non-american) outsiders do to help fix/improve this situation (in American prisons)?
What can (non-american) outsiders do to help fix/improve this situation (in American prisons)?
You probably can't do anything about the actual prison experience, but you can help the individuals both before, during and after.
There are organizations that try to keep people out of prison by giving them activities or trade training.
And there are organizations that try to help people find jobs after leaving prison.
You could find some you like and help them financially.
Another positive influence is the religious community, so you can help those as well. People with strong religious ties tend to have a much easier time joining their community after prison.
There are also some religious communities that try to reach people in prison, and you could help them.
There are organizations that try to keep people out of prison by giving them activities or trade training.
And there are organizations that try to help people find jobs after leaving prison.
You could find some you like and help them financially.
Another positive influence is the religious community, so you can help those as well. People with strong religious ties tend to have a much easier time joining their community after prison.
There are also some religious communities that try to reach people in prison, and you could help them.
I think (as non-american) that the best you can do is to try to convince your American friends (you may have to acquire them first) that the idea of the prison is not a punishment but isolation of the danger and reconditioning to the return back into the society.
My understanding is that the last one can not happen in open prisons but only in solitary confinement where a single prisoner does not have any contact with other prisoners but still has constant concealing by professionals and does have other conditions to maintain its decency.
My understanding is that the last one can not happen in open prisons but only in solitary confinement where a single prisoner does not have any contact with other prisoners but still has constant concealing by professionals and does have other conditions to maintain its decency.
Nuke us.
I really don't have words for this.
The problem is we the people. We treat anyone in prison or with a government label of felon, sex offender etc. as less than human being. I can't blame the prison university.
The problem is we the people. We treat anyone in prison or with a government label of felon, sex offender etc. as less than human being. I can't blame the prison university.
Thanks for sharing this. I would be interested to read more about it. People like who have not been counting their years migh have some imagination, but imagination does not replace experience. Perhaps you should make a write up of your time and observations.
Has temporary imprisonment ever been shown to have a positive impact?
>>Young kids who have done something incredibly stupid
>>They are then immediately put in a situation to fuck or fight.
IMHO this aspect of prison life is common knowledge. I wonder how incredibly stupid one has to be to risk getting jailed. And looking at the numbers that is not a marginal phenomenon.
>>They are then immediately put in a situation to fuck or fight.
IMHO this aspect of prison life is common knowledge. I wonder how incredibly stupid one has to be to risk getting jailed. And looking at the numbers that is not a marginal phenomenon.
A great many things can cause you to be party to something incredibly stupid - something mildly stupid escalating, doing something without full understanding of the consequences...
Even if you do grasp the risk at hand, other pressures can drive you to make stupid choices.
Regardless of how you got there, though, it should not be a given that you're going to come out of it worse than you went in.
Even if you do grasp the risk at hand, other pressures can drive you to make stupid choices.
Regardless of how you got there, though, it should not be a given that you're going to come out of it worse than you went in.
>> something mildly stupid escalating, doing something without full understanding of the consequences...
I still do not get how someone can not understand the consequences. Have they never seen any movie? Really? Never talk to former inmates?
I still do not get how someone can not understand the consequences. Have they never seen any movie? Really? Never talk to former inmates?
Knowing, abstractly, that doing X can result in Y punishment, and having internalized it to the point that you think of this fact as a deterrent when you're considering whether to do X, are not the same thing.
It's similar to (but not the same, I think, as) the difference between not doing X because you've been told Y will happen, and not doing X because you have memories of doing X and Y happening - the latter is a lot more deeply ingrained.
Consider newly-minted adults in prosperous environments leaving their parents' home for college for the first time - they have a theoretical knowledge of the various stresses, risks, and concerns that will arise when they live on their own, but until they've actually done it for a while and had various mishaps, it won't be nearly as well-calibrated and digested into their thinking.
Or consider the uptick of music piracy when the internet was just becoming ubiquitous - people knew, abstractly, that it was theft, and could carry consequences, but that didn't enter into most of their considerations.
It's similar to (but not the same, I think, as) the difference between not doing X because you've been told Y will happen, and not doing X because you have memories of doing X and Y happening - the latter is a lot more deeply ingrained.
Consider newly-minted adults in prosperous environments leaving their parents' home for college for the first time - they have a theoretical knowledge of the various stresses, risks, and concerns that will arise when they live on their own, but until they've actually done it for a while and had various mishaps, it won't be nearly as well-calibrated and digested into their thinking.
Or consider the uptick of music piracy when the internet was just becoming ubiquitous - people knew, abstractly, that it was theft, and could carry consequences, but that didn't enter into most of their considerations.
"Piracy is theft"
Digital piracy is not theft. It's like taking pictures in a museum when it's not allowed. It's taking a picture of public buildings in the wrong country. It's copyright infringement and an issue for the civil court, not the criminal court.
Edit: your other points are good though :)
Digital piracy is not theft. It's like taking pictures in a museum when it's not allowed. It's taking a picture of public buildings in the wrong country. It's copyright infringement and an issue for the civil court, not the criminal court.
Edit: your other points are good though :)
Regardless of whether piracy is or isn't a theft, it's actually a pretty good example. The fact is, people can and are fined and imprisoned for piracy. And yet this fact is very remote to most people who pirate copyrighted content.
I don't think many people are imprisoned for piracy, if any. I'm not talking about filming in a movie theater, i'm talking downloading content for free.
I should have specified; I did not intend to actually weigh in on whether or not it was analogous to theft of material goods, just that people had a vague notion that it was acquiring something without paying for it and that it was not legally permissible.
>>difference between not doing X because you've been told Y will happen, and not doing X because you have memories of doing X and Y happening
I do not have to have memories about being raped in the jail to know that it is a bad experience. Am I a genius?
Funny fact: I moved out with 14 to a big city for a special school and lived in a dormitory with normal guys. None of us got jailed.
I hear only bad excuses.
I do not have to have memories about being raped in the jail to know that it is a bad experience. Am I a genius?
Funny fact: I moved out with 14 to a big city for a special school and lived in a dormitory with normal guys. None of us got jailed.
I hear only bad excuses.
The fact that none of you got jailed is actually more relevant than you seem to think.
If, say, a decent portion of your classmates, including people you were friends with, were regularly accused of crimes and occasionally imprisoned for them, what effect do you think it might have on your perception of how "wrong" the acts they committed were?
When cognitive dissonance arises from trying to reconcile actions that are on the opposite end of the spectrum from how you associate a person, the outcome is generally not that one of those two absolutes remains and the other shifts, but that both perceptions shift.
I'm not claiming that any of this justifies poor decisions, only that it's quite feasible to have a heavily warped view ingrained in you, and that, if a split-second comes where a mildly poor decision could get exponentially worse, it's not generally the case that you spend minutes consciously considering all the options and rehearsing them - you make a decision without consciously reviewing why, and a skewed view can make a hell of a difference then.
If, say, a decent portion of your classmates, including people you were friends with, were regularly accused of crimes and occasionally imprisoned for them, what effect do you think it might have on your perception of how "wrong" the acts they committed were?
When cognitive dissonance arises from trying to reconcile actions that are on the opposite end of the spectrum from how you associate a person, the outcome is generally not that one of those two absolutes remains and the other shifts, but that both perceptions shift.
I'm not claiming that any of this justifies poor decisions, only that it's quite feasible to have a heavily warped view ingrained in you, and that, if a split-second comes where a mildly poor decision could get exponentially worse, it's not generally the case that you spend minutes consciously considering all the options and rehearsing them - you make a decision without consciously reviewing why, and a skewed view can make a hell of a difference then.
If saying that "for doing illegal things you can get jailed and raped therefore do not do illegal things under any circumstances, except protecting yourself and your loved ones" is a warped view, than I take your comment as a compliment.
>>if a split-second comes where a mildly poor decision could get exponentially worse
I think you talk abot non existent things. Can you please explain me how can an average illegal act be a "split-second poor decision"? You can not steal a car or start dealng drugs in a split-second. Except you are Flash.
>>if a split-second comes where a mildly poor decision could get exponentially worse
I think you talk abot non existent things. Can you please explain me how can an average illegal act be a "split-second poor decision"? You can not steal a car or start dealng drugs in a split-second. Except you are Flash.
According to some scientists [1], death penalty cases have a 4.1% error rate. There's logical arguments that the error rate for life sentences is higher and for non capital felonies it might be a lot higher.
Rape-Murders have a 3.3% floor with an estimated 5% ceiling [2].
I wouldn't be shocked if the rate for the none capital convictions was in the neighborhood of 10%...well actually I am shocked about it. There's probably also discrimination and some demographics get a lot more false convictions than others (I'd guess being poor doesn't help for example).
[1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230
[2]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042842?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
I wouldn't be shocked if the rate for the none capital convictions was in the neighborhood of 10%...well actually I am shocked about it. There's probably also discrimination and some demographics get a lot more false convictions than others (I'd guess being poor doesn't help for example).
[1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230
[2]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042842?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
And yet this is a fact, because otherwise hardly anyone would be in prison. It seems you're confused about this.
A hint: lot of the "incredibly stupid" things are being done in the heat of the moment. Other times, people don't really imagine something bad could happen to them. Then, sometimes people think they have no other choice - maybe they're "in too deep", or maybe it's the only way they can think of supporting their family, etc. Sometimes people just take a huge risk for potential huge gains (think of it as criminal world equivalent of starting a startup).
Humans are not perfect reasoning machines with infinite computation speed.
A hint: lot of the "incredibly stupid" things are being done in the heat of the moment. Other times, people don't really imagine something bad could happen to them. Then, sometimes people think they have no other choice - maybe they're "in too deep", or maybe it's the only way they can think of supporting their family, etc. Sometimes people just take a huge risk for potential huge gains (think of it as criminal world equivalent of starting a startup).
Humans are not perfect reasoning machines with infinite computation speed.
The vast majority of prison inmates have a long history of offenses and didn't just do one stupid thing.
They had to have started on this road of offenses somehow, and I'd wager it usually starts with the mildly stupid things.
That doesn't speak very highly of the rehabilitative capacity of prison then, does it? Why are we even sending them?
They can't hurt the rest of us while they rot in prison.
That's really it. Rehabilitation and retribution are only minor factors, for the liberal and conservative voters respectively. The main factor is just stopping crime by warehousing people until they die or get too old to cause trouble.
It's expensive, but you have to admit that it is extremely effective.
That's really it. Rehabilitation and retribution are only minor factors, for the liberal and conservative voters respectively. The main factor is just stopping crime by warehousing people until they die or get too old to cause trouble.
It's expensive, but you have to admit that it is extremely effective.
LOL, Your comment about stopping crime by locking people up made me laugh hard.
I've done time in the federal system, and on one of my transfers between prisons, I got to sit beside a supermax transfer prisoner. Really, he was a pretty nice fellow. Said he had to kill a guard once in a while to get out and see the sights and have some decent food. He was on his way to court for that murder case trial.
I've done time in the federal system, and on one of my transfers between prisons, I got to sit beside a supermax transfer prisoner. Really, he was a pretty nice fellow. Said he had to kill a guard once in a while to get out and see the sights and have some decent food. He was on his way to court for that murder case trial.
>> yet this is a fact, because otherwise hardly anyone would be in prison.
The explanation that some people just ignore the laws and think they can get away with it is too simple, isn't it?
>> Humans are not perfect reasoning machines
Neider are they "stupid saints". They sometimes just take a huge risk for whatever reason. And sometimes this risk involves getting jailed, because society consider some kind of risks as undesired and make you pay a high price for taking them.
The explanation that some people just ignore the laws and think they can get away with it is too simple, isn't it?
>> Humans are not perfect reasoning machines
Neider are they "stupid saints". They sometimes just take a huge risk for whatever reason. And sometimes this risk involves getting jailed, because society consider some kind of risks as undesired and make you pay a high price for taking them.
Get tipsy with friends. Get into a disagreement with them. Jokularly push one of them to make a point. They trip, fall backwards, head hits pavement. Dead or coma.
Hello manslaughter.
It's very easy to do something stupid without realizing it in the moment.
Hello manslaughter.
It's very easy to do something stupid without realizing it in the moment.
I never hat anybody, neider sober nor tipsy, except of self defense. This is not the definition of not being stupid but of being normal. If you want to be treated like a human being behave yourself like one.
Please tell me the situation you described putted 2 M people into jail! You must have the highest "accidental death" rate of the universe.
Please tell me the situation you described putted 2 M people into jail! You must have the highest "accidental death" rate of the universe.
It was an example of something innocent leading to grave consequences. Obviously it doesn't happen to 2 million people.
Friends often shove and shoulder-punch each other without it being self-defence. It's usually not even considered "hitting". But accidents do happen. Especially when substances affect people's sense of balance and floors are uneven.
Here's a much more common way to go to prison for something silly: You have a baggie of weed in your car. You roll through a stop sign. Get pulled over. Cop smells the weed. You go to jail. Oh, you just bought plenty so you can share with friends (they all pitched in). Bam, charged with intent to sell. Serious jail time.
It's really easy to go to prison for stupid stuff.[1]
In fact, on average everyone commits 3 felonies per day. --> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389...
[1] Hell, as a teenager I got arrested for shoplifting something like 20 euro worth of candy. No jail, but talk about stupid reasons to get arrested.
Friends often shove and shoulder-punch each other without it being self-defence. It's usually not even considered "hitting". But accidents do happen. Especially when substances affect people's sense of balance and floors are uneven.
Here's a much more common way to go to prison for something silly: You have a baggie of weed in your car. You roll through a stop sign. Get pulled over. Cop smells the weed. You go to jail. Oh, you just bought plenty so you can share with friends (they all pitched in). Bam, charged with intent to sell. Serious jail time.
It's really easy to go to prison for stupid stuff.[1]
In fact, on average everyone commits 3 felonies per day. --> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389...
[1] Hell, as a teenager I got arrested for shoplifting something like 20 euro worth of candy. No jail, but talk about stupid reasons to get arrested.
What percentage of people are incarcerated for something like that?
I don't know. I imagine it depends a lot on factors mostly to do with how much a jury/judge likes you.
Generally we treat killing others, even if you didn't mean to, very harshly. It's very easy to get incarcerated for a crash caused while driving tipsy, for instance, especially if somebody dies.
I imagine manslaughter is one of those things where you only have to fuck up once, completely by accident, to ruin your life (and a few others' obviously) quite terribly.
Generally we treat killing others, even if you didn't mean to, very harshly. It's very easy to get incarcerated for a crash caused while driving tipsy, for instance, especially if somebody dies.
I imagine manslaughter is one of those things where you only have to fuck up once, completely by accident, to ruin your life (and a few others' obviously) quite terribly.
Human beings are notoriously bad at estimating risk.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...
People know that they can die a horribly painful death from using a car, but they still drive. They do so not by making an informed risk/benefit analysis, they do by simply assuming that it won't happen to them. Same for crime and getting caught. We are not able to rationally deal with big risks, we only know the extremes of letting them completely dominate our decisions (e.g. people who will never use a bike in traffic, or only with a lucky charm on their head) or pretending that they don't exist.
Knowing of consequences does not imply being aware of them.
Knowing of consequences does not imply being aware of them.
Many people who understand the consequences end up in jail. Are you saying they deserve the inhuman treatment because they knew about it?
Am I?
Why the snark? Is this discussion funny to you? If you don't want to contribute civilly, please don't.
Since when is putting words I did not said in my mouth "contributing civilly"? If you make a gunfight out of a conversation do not blame me if you get shot.
you: >>Young kids who have done something incredibly stupid
>>They are then immediately put in a situation to fuck or fight.
IMHO this aspect of prison life is common knowledge. I wonder how incredibly stupid one has to be to risk getting jailed. And looking at the numbers that is not a marginal phenomenon.
I read this as
- it is common knowledge that prison includes fighting and rape
- if you know this (and you should), you accept this as part of your punishment for doing something that sends you to prison
You support this interpretation later on:
you: I still do not get how someone can not understand the consequences.
lolc: Many people who understand the consequences end up in jail. Are you saying they deserve the inhuman treatment because they knew about it?
To me, that's pretty close to how lolc is rephrasing your position, and asking if that's indeed what you mean. And they're not stating that is your position, which would be putting words in your mouth. They're asking you to clarify whether or not that's a fair restatement.
I see two assumptions made in the restatement:
- "fuck or fight" is inhuman[e] treatment. I'd say it is. Do you?
- "knowing the consequences, you act" => "you deserve the consequences" This seems like an acceptable assumption as well. What do you think?
Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well, while asking to confirm if that's what you mean. That's not putting words in your mouth.
This may not be what you mean. You're being asked to clarify. If it's not, I'd expect you explain where the interpretation is wrong, not just imply that it is ("Am I?") and leave it up to them to try again. And please clarify if I've mischaracterized what you've said as well.
Given that you find it useful to compare this conversation to a gunfight, it's likely wrong for me to expect you to be civil about it. I'm responding to clarify how I read the situation, and will leave it at that.
[Minor edits for clarity.]
>>They are then immediately put in a situation to fuck or fight.
IMHO this aspect of prison life is common knowledge. I wonder how incredibly stupid one has to be to risk getting jailed. And looking at the numbers that is not a marginal phenomenon.
I read this as
- it is common knowledge that prison includes fighting and rape
- if you know this (and you should), you accept this as part of your punishment for doing something that sends you to prison
You support this interpretation later on:
you: I still do not get how someone can not understand the consequences.
lolc: Many people who understand the consequences end up in jail. Are you saying they deserve the inhuman treatment because they knew about it?
To me, that's pretty close to how lolc is rephrasing your position, and asking if that's indeed what you mean. And they're not stating that is your position, which would be putting words in your mouth. They're asking you to clarify whether or not that's a fair restatement.
I see two assumptions made in the restatement:
- "fuck or fight" is inhuman[e] treatment. I'd say it is. Do you?
- "knowing the consequences, you act" => "you deserve the consequences" This seems like an acceptable assumption as well. What do you think?
Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well, while asking to confirm if that's what you mean. That's not putting words in your mouth.
This may not be what you mean. You're being asked to clarify. If it's not, I'd expect you explain where the interpretation is wrong, not just imply that it is ("Am I?") and leave it up to them to try again. And please clarify if I've mischaracterized what you've said as well.
Given that you find it useful to compare this conversation to a gunfight, it's likely wrong for me to expect you to be civil about it. I'm responding to clarify how I read the situation, and will leave it at that.
[Minor edits for clarity.]
>> To me, that's pretty close to how lolc is rephrasing your position
>> "you deserve the consequences" [...] Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well
I did not said that anyone deserves an inhumant treatment like this. If you rephrase what I said and doing so it gets "pretty close to" or "reasonable interpreted as" something really stupid, that is not my fault. Both of us are better off if you just stop rephrasing my sentences, don't you think?
>> "you deserve the consequences" [...] Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well
I did not said that anyone deserves an inhumant treatment like this. If you rephrase what I said and doing so it gets "pretty close to" or "reasonable interpreted as" something really stupid, that is not my fault. Both of us are better off if you just stop rephrasing my sentences, don't you think?
[deleted]
Innocent people are commonly put in jail. Then you have judges who get kickbacks by putting people in jail. And yes, poorer people in particular, end up much often in the wrong place/wrong time.
We should start by getting rid of private, for profit prisons. Next we should actually make them safe places. I originally thought the headline was a joke because prisoners (gangs to be precise) already run prisons.
We should start by getting rid of private, for profit prisons. Next we should actually make them safe places. I originally thought the headline was a joke because prisoners (gangs to be precise) already run prisons.
> how incredibly stupid one has to be
because literally everyone was raised in the same privileged home you were ? Nobody was abused or neglected and not taught right from wrong ? everyone is literally just like you ?
because literally everyone was raised in the same privileged home you were ? Nobody was abused or neglected and not taught right from wrong ? everyone is literally just like you ?
No, not everybody is like me. I take responsibility for my actions and do not blame others, my parents or the society. And yes, the whole generation of my parents and also mine was abused by the russians. We had the highest suicide and alcoholism rates of the world. And I got over it.
andrepd(2)
Cost of prison per prisoner per year:
$168,000
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-c...
Average in the US:
$31,000
https://www.vera.org/publications/the-price-of-prisons-what-...
This isn't about justice. It's about prison guard jobs. It's about welfare.
$168,000
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-c...
Average in the US:
$31,000
https://www.vera.org/publications/the-price-of-prisons-what-...
This isn't about justice. It's about prison guard jobs. It's about welfare.
It's not just about welfare, its also about political power. For example, New York houses tens of thousands of prisoners from New York City in various upstate prison towns. The population of these prisoners is counted towards the populations of these upstate towns, even though the prisoners cannot vote and aren't from that area. For purposes of gerrymandering, funding, and anything else related to population these prisoners are literally political ammunition. This added clout puts representatives in the statehouse that exist only to flood the prisons with more prisoners, completely beholden to prison guard unions and other prison-related industries. They spend their time blocking any sort of logical criminal reform, marijuana legalization, or anything else that would slow the steady stream of prisoners. Its a corrupt system to the core.
http://www.demos.org/publication/census-count-and-prisoners-...
http://www.demos.org/publication/census-count-and-prisoners-...
Prison gerrymandering has been reformed in a few places, particularly New York. Due to reforms passed in 2010, prisoners are now counted toward their home districts.
California has likewise passed a law to discontinue the process there by 2020.
For much of the rest of the country, this is still a problem.
http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/newyork.html
California has likewise passed a law to discontinue the process there by 2020.
For much of the rest of the country, this is still a problem.
http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/newyork.html
Well, nothing to do with hackers, but if this
> Immediately they are yelled at by officers to strip naked, get ‘nuts to butts,’ and after being searched they are kept naked for several minutes until they are issued some boxers...
is true. Boah, how can everybody yell at the 'bad behaviour' of Trump and Clinton and look away here?
> Immediately they are yelled at by officers to strip naked, get ‘nuts to butts,’ and after being searched they are kept naked for several minutes until they are issued some boxers...
is true. Boah, how can everybody yell at the 'bad behaviour' of Trump and Clinton and look away here?
I agree, it's pretty sick. I can see how this sort of behaviour can become normalised, hard to remove and in some cases part of what the public expect from the prison experience. Many people see prison as a place to be punished, so it's easy for them to rationalise any sort of demeaning or dehumanising treatment as part of the package - "well he/she should've thought about that before they broke the law..." etc
In addition if you're a politician you're not going to win votes by campaigning for better conditions in prisons, now matter how you spin it.
In addition if you're a politician you're not going to win votes by campaigning for better conditions in prisons, now matter how you spin it.
Yes, but how is an inmate supposed to become 'better' in future if he (I assume this only happens to men) is treated this respectless? Maybe you are right with winning votes. But on the other hand I perceive the americans as quite human. And if voters (and politicians) want to reduce the likelyhood of inmates to slide back I think the conditions must be improved (if they really should be that bad - I somehow cannot believe this report, completly unthinkable in Europe (maybe we exagerate a bit towards the other end, don't know)
I hate to come off as overly negative, but while Americans individually can seem like very nice people, that's not really our culture. Especially when it comes to prison -- very few people give much thought to rehabilitation. Prison is meant to be punishment, period. Anything that makes it more humane is perceived as making it like a vacation or something. This is why we don't put a stop to things like rape in prison, because we have completely dehumanized prisoners. We treat our pets better.
Which is why the inhumane treatment of prisoners by people like former Sheriff Joe Arpaio in AZ was not only tolerated but often condoned by the public. It's why he was re-elected, for being perceived as tough on crime.
While they might not admit it, some people want to know that these criminals are being mistreated. They like the idea, somewhere deep down, of a criminal being forced to wear pink underwear and being fed spoiled food. It's twisted, wrong even. But it's very much American. Like apple pie, or baseball.
While they might not admit it, some people want to know that these criminals are being mistreated. They like the idea, somewhere deep down, of a criminal being forced to wear pink underwear and being fed spoiled food. It's twisted, wrong even. But it's very much American. Like apple pie, or baseball.
It is a very important point to remember that Arpaio was in charge of the county jail. That means many/most of the people being fed rotten baloney sandwichs were awaiting trial. They hadn't even been convicted.
And there are people who have been in jail, awaiting trial for years, I think infamously there's one case in Riker's Island that waited 12 years to go to trial. Jails are every thing that is bad about prison made worse by constant flux, no one has to accept that these are the people they will have to spend years with.
And there are people who have been in jail, awaiting trial for years, I think infamously there's one case in Riker's Island that waited 12 years to go to trial. Jails are every thing that is bad about prison made worse by constant flux, no one has to accept that these are the people they will have to spend years with.
> Which is why the inhumane treatment of prisoners by people like former Sheriff Joe Arpaio in AZ was not only tolerated but often condoned by the public.
Yeah but the tide has turned against him, he got booted out of office (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/sheriff-joe-arpaio-booted-fr...).
About the only positive result from this years' election.
Yeah but the tide has turned against him, he got booted out of office (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/sheriff-joe-arpaio-booted-fr...).
About the only positive result from this years' election.
Another good result from the election: many states are legalising marihuana in some form, that's more money income from taxes and less spent on prisons.
It's still a long way from an evidence based drug (law enforcement) policy, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
It's still a long way from an evidence based drug (law enforcement) policy, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
alas, in many states law enforcement and other groups are finding ways to continue profiting from marijuana prohibition - legalization is regulation, and they make punishments stricter for some 'crimes' while legalizing other things. For instance, plant count. Some proposed laws do things like legalize growing 6 plants... while 7 remains a felony, and all while not defining a plant. Or in Colorado, while growing a few plants became legal, processing them into hash with solvents became a 2nd degree felony.
In my own experience, police in Oregon and Colorado have started enforcing DUI and public consumption for marijuana rather than possession - and those charges carry higher punishmebts than minor possession used to carry. My neighbor was raided by a swat team last year, fully armed, with emergency support, for alllegedly being over plant count (a municipal court type violation...).
So, things are moving sideways. The people addicted to making perverse profits are predictably not keen to let go.
In my own experience, police in Oregon and Colorado have started enforcing DUI and public consumption for marijuana rather than possession - and those charges carry higher punishmebts than minor possession used to carry. My neighbor was raided by a swat team last year, fully armed, with emergency support, for alllegedly being over plant count (a municipal court type violation...).
So, things are moving sideways. The people addicted to making perverse profits are predictably not keen to let go.
American Criminal Justice is particularly leaning towards the concept of Just Deserts: if someone does something bad then it is right that bad things should happen to them, without any concept of overall harm minimization.
It is a known, accepted meaningful contrast to rehabilitative justice (make the person stop being a criminal) and restorative justice (try to undo the harm that the crime caused). It isn't just a flawed overlooked system, it's a philosophical underpinning.
It is a known, accepted meaningful contrast to rehabilitative justice (make the person stop being a criminal) and restorative justice (try to undo the harm that the crime caused). It isn't just a flawed overlooked system, it's a philosophical underpinning.
> American Criminal Justice is particularly leaning towards the concept of Just Deserts: if someone does something bad then it is right that bad things should happen to them, without any concept of overall harm minimization.
Why do many US Americans think this way (I'm German, so also by looking at Germany's history I think completely differently about all this).
Why do many US Americans think this way (I'm German, so also by looking at Germany's history I think completely differently about all this).
It probably comes from America's largely Puritan upbringing. We have this intrinsic belief that how successful (in terms of power, money, respect, fame) you are is a reflection of how good a person you are, and if you are a bad person then you will get what's coming to you. And that these traits are basically innate, so someone who's bad is irredeemable, so we should minimize the harm they do to the good people, while if someone was good they wouldn't be in whatever bad situation they're in, or at the very least they would have already figured out how to get themselves out of it.
This is reflected in our means-testing for entitlements, for instance: if you can't find a job within a few months, you must be intrinsically lazy, and therefore don't deserve anymore handouts. So we cut off unemployment and food aid after a relatively short amount of time.
This is reflected in our means-testing for entitlements, for instance: if you can't find a job within a few months, you must be intrinsically lazy, and therefore don't deserve anymore handouts. So we cut off unemployment and food aid after a relatively short amount of time.
A lot of it I think is just sort of post hoc rationalization.
Following the civil war prisons were used as a back door replacement for slavery. There's a strong strain in America that My Money is worth more than Your Life which makes it intractable to spend enough to do prison "right". A general belief in a just world...
One day you wake up and realize what all this has lead to and because now the problem is so big you can only see two options: utter despair or figure out a way to pretend to yourself that this is what you want.
Following the civil war prisons were used as a back door replacement for slavery. There's a strong strain in America that My Money is worth more than Your Life which makes it intractable to spend enough to do prison "right". A general belief in a just world...
One day you wake up and realize what all this has lead to and because now the problem is so big you can only see two options: utter despair or figure out a way to pretend to yourself that this is what you want.
> Why do many US Americans think this way
It's certainly not specific to americans! I don't know about german jails, but in France they are notoriously bad and many people are totally fine with it.
It's certainly not specific to americans! I don't know about german jails, but in France they are notoriously bad and many people are totally fine with it.
Female prisoners are definitely strip searched and given prison outfits on arrival as well. http://www.ravishly.com/2014/12/11/ultimate-humiliation-what...
You should ask someone who believes these things. As I said I think it is kinda sick. Personally I believe the Norwegian model is preferable.
No, the majority sentiment is to punish.
Then why not just shoot them (and spare the money for food and housing)? (For the record, I'm strongly against death penalty).
I cannot believe it. I would fire immediately all and every prison employee which act as respectlessly and irresponsibly (action --> reaction).
There was now a 8 year long Democratic administration and I have to read such stories. Is this also the majority-Democratic-sentiment? Or were they helpless against the Republican dominated congress?
Just looked up statistics (wikipedia): 1 in 3 black males will go to prison in their lifetime (and then be treated in this way). I think of my friends: 1 in 3! Absurd (even worse than I thought), someone has to fix this!!
I cannot believe it. I would fire immediately all and every prison employee which act as respectlessly and irresponsibly (action --> reaction).
There was now a 8 year long Democratic administration and I have to read such stories. Is this also the majority-Democratic-sentiment? Or were they helpless against the Republican dominated congress?
Just looked up statistics (wikipedia): 1 in 3 black males will go to prison in their lifetime (and then be treated in this way). I think of my friends: 1 in 3! Absurd (even worse than I thought), someone has to fix this!!
"Then why not just shoot them"
One day I was doing some grocery shopping and a some guy comes up and asks me how my relationship with Jesus was. I'm an atheist and said so and he began following me around the store trying out various talking points in an attempt to get me to attend the youth outreach concert/thing they were having that night.
At one point he asks "What if some one were to rape your daughter and then shoot himself, you wouldn't care that he wouldn't be punished?"
Think about that for a second. This was a youth pastor, a man who theoretically instructs the children of the United State on ethics and morality, who did not believe death was a sufficient punishment.
ETA: and lest anyone think I might be exaggerating his stance, I actually called him on that several times. "Well I mean: he's dead, how is that not punishment" I asked immediately. I think 4 times we pushed at the sides of that point before he moved onto some other argument. Which is to say he was willing to defend the idea that death wasn't punishment enough.
One day I was doing some grocery shopping and a some guy comes up and asks me how my relationship with Jesus was. I'm an atheist and said so and he began following me around the store trying out various talking points in an attempt to get me to attend the youth outreach concert/thing they were having that night.
At one point he asks "What if some one were to rape your daughter and then shoot himself, you wouldn't care that he wouldn't be punished?"
Think about that for a second. This was a youth pastor, a man who theoretically instructs the children of the United State on ethics and morality, who did not believe death was a sufficient punishment.
ETA: and lest anyone think I might be exaggerating his stance, I actually called him on that several times. "Well I mean: he's dead, how is that not punishment" I asked immediately. I think 4 times we pushed at the sides of that point before he moved onto some other argument. Which is to say he was willing to defend the idea that death wasn't punishment enough.
[deleted]
Criminal justice in America is largely up to the States. Thus, having a Democratic President does not mean there will be a liberalization of policy.
That's perhaps one of the best smokescreens that has been pulled on the American people in recent times. The president has very little say in domestic affairs. On the other hand, thanks to various congressional outcomes, he can use the nation's military might abroad with virtual impunity.
[deleted]
> In addition if you're a politician you're not going to win votes by campaigning for better conditions in prisons, now matter how you spin it.
This is the root cause, and the political/policy effects are a symptom. There are places where this kind of treatment would be considered a scandal, but American culture doesn't agree.
This is the root cause, and the political/policy effects are a symptom. There are places where this kind of treatment would be considered a scandal, but American culture doesn't agree.
I think we all pretty much know inmates are treated poorly, and while it is most certainly a tragedy, we are a) unable to meaningfully change their situations in the short or medium term and b) have more directly effecting issues that take priority.
Why is it that all the successful companies in the private prison industry are terrible for the inmates? The client is the state, and the state doesn't care about costs associated with caring for inmates, right?
Is there any way to turn that on its head? To... uh, "disrupt" some small part of this?
Why is it that all the successful companies in the private prison industry are terrible for the inmates? The client is the state, and the state doesn't care about costs associated with caring for inmates, right?
Is there any way to turn that on its head? To... uh, "disrupt" some small part of this?
I spent my afternoon hanging out with an ex-con and entrepreneur I met through Defy Ventures. They're a great organization that are giving second chances to the incarcerated. If you're looking for a practical way to make a difference, check out https://defyventures.org and sign up as a mentor. If you live in the bay area, they have a day trip to Avenal State Prison coming up next month and are looking for volunteers to help as business coaches.
Today I asked this entrepreneur for his perspective on what needs to change in our judicial system. Not surprisingly, he gave me a long list of things that are broken, including the corrupting influence of money which incentivizes tough laws and full prisons. And the money which allows people with money to walk away with a slap on the wrist for committing the exact same crime that put him away for years.
When he was released, he was scared to leave prison. He shared how the free world is terrifying to those who've been incarcerated for years. He'd been locked up in high school and never had a chance to get a proper education. He couldn't find anyone to hire him. He couldn't find anyone who'd even rent him an apartment with a felony on his record. The only people who reached out to him were his old gang members. Imagine spending the majority of your life behind bars and then being thrown into a world with smart phones and the internet -- neither of which existed when you were locked up.
Many of us in this community agree on how unfair the judicial system is in America. Many of us believe in the concept of second chances and redemption. And many of us (myself included) could do a better job at demonstrating that belief with our actions.
Today I asked this entrepreneur for his perspective on what needs to change in our judicial system. Not surprisingly, he gave me a long list of things that are broken, including the corrupting influence of money which incentivizes tough laws and full prisons. And the money which allows people with money to walk away with a slap on the wrist for committing the exact same crime that put him away for years.
When he was released, he was scared to leave prison. He shared how the free world is terrifying to those who've been incarcerated for years. He'd been locked up in high school and never had a chance to get a proper education. He couldn't find anyone to hire him. He couldn't find anyone who'd even rent him an apartment with a felony on his record. The only people who reached out to him were his old gang members. Imagine spending the majority of your life behind bars and then being thrown into a world with smart phones and the internet -- neither of which existed when you were locked up.
Many of us in this community agree on how unfair the judicial system is in America. Many of us believe in the concept of second chances and redemption. And many of us (myself included) could do a better job at demonstrating that belief with our actions.
I wonder why there are no private non-profit prisons.
There are many states that allow private prisons. There have been multiple articles about how awful these prisons are. Why not try to open a non-profit prison where gov't funds are supplemented with donations and focusing on rehabilitation and humane living conditions. Then we both improve the lives of some inmates, and can more effectively compare outcomes.
There are many states that allow private prisons. There have been multiple articles about how awful these prisons are. Why not try to open a non-profit prison where gov't funds are supplemented with donations and focusing on rehabilitation and humane living conditions. Then we both improve the lives of some inmates, and can more effectively compare outcomes.
Because the amount available per prisioner per day is so low that a non-profit prison could not do much better. It is not like the for-profit prisions are running on profit margins of 50%.
~12.5% margin for CCA in 2015 [1]. I suspect that $227M could manage to pay for bringing some fresh produce into the commissary.
Edit: not to mention the $890K they spent on lobbying.
[1]: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/11/117983/201...
Edit: not to mention the $890K they spent on lobbying.
[1]: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/11/117983/201...
This is not a great margin given the capital requirements and political risks. It would be hard for a new non-profit to get to their efficiency without scale and even if you did it would not free up anywhere near the resources required to make major changes in prisoner treatment.
The basic problem is still the tiny amount spent per prisoner on anything other than keeping them locked up. We need to spend more if we want them to not just be heading straight back to jail.
The basic problem is still the tiny amount spent per prisoner on anything other than keeping them locked up. We need to spend more if we want them to not just be heading straight back to jail.
That's not the point. The margins could be low. But it would still have two effects:
* Prisoners would be treated better
* Whatever small profits could be pumped into rehabilitation
Currently for-profit prisons have perverse incentives, like claiming prisoners have behaved badly and therefore extending their sentences.
* Prisoners would be treated better
* Whatever small profits could be pumped into rehabilitation
Currently for-profit prisons have perverse incentives, like claiming prisoners have behaved badly and therefore extending their sentences.
The problem is the perverse incentives, not who manages the prisons. Non-profit prisons can be just as badly run as for profit prisons.
We need to change what we pay for - no more paying for each prisoner locked up, lets pay for each prisoner that avoids reoffending. We want people that come out of prison to not go around committing more crimes. For profit might help here in that they may try innovative approaches that achieve this aim - we just have to give them the right incentives.
We need to change what we pay for - no more paying for each prisoner locked up, lets pay for each prisoner that avoids reoffending. We want people that come out of prison to not go around committing more crimes. For profit might help here in that they may try innovative approaches that achieve this aim - we just have to give them the right incentives.
Since when was a non profit supposed to make a profit?! Who cares how low the margins are fit as long as it's sustainable.
Because the aim is to free up money to spend on rehabilitating the prisoners. If there is not enough money being made in profit then converting to a non-profit structure would not help much.
Having said this I actually think a for profit model with the right incentives might be the best way to go. The current incentive structure for private prisons basically encourages a revolving door since they are paid per prisoner per day.
What we need is smarter incentives that encourage prisons to help ex-prisioners to not reoffend. The problem is not the small share of spend going towards private profits, by a system that encourages the prisons to always be full.
Having said this I actually think a for profit model with the right incentives might be the best way to go. The current incentive structure for private prisons basically encourages a revolving door since they are paid per prisoner per day.
What we need is smarter incentives that encourage prisons to help ex-prisioners to not reoffend. The problem is not the small share of spend going towards private profits, by a system that encourages the prisons to always be full.
Best idea I've seen on the thread. There's corruption to overcome but the non-profit could similarly bribe the politicians. It's worth someone trying.
Related: The Dutch prison crisis: A shortage of prisoners http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37904263
> If somebody has a drug problem we treat their addiction, if they are aggressive we provide anger management, if they have got money problems we give them debt counselling. So we try to remove whatever it was that caused the crime. The inmate himself or herself must be willing to change but our method has been very effective. Over the last 10 years, our work has improved more and more.
> Fewer than 10% then return to prison after their release. In England and Wales, and in the United States, roughly half of those serving short sentences reoffend within two years, and the figure is often higher for young adults.
> If somebody has a drug problem we treat their addiction, if they are aggressive we provide anger management, if they have got money problems we give them debt counselling. So we try to remove whatever it was that caused the crime. The inmate himself or herself must be willing to change but our method has been very effective. Over the last 10 years, our work has improved more and more.
> Fewer than 10% then return to prison after their release. In England and Wales, and in the United States, roughly half of those serving short sentences reoffend within two years, and the figure is often higher for young adults.
There seems to be a pretty decisive anti-prison circle jerk in this thread. It's a trend that is very common among progressives, common enough that I think we could do something about it.
Does anyone want to say things in support of prison? If we revamp the prison system, what things should we keep? What do prisons do right?
And, what are the next steps for a community willing to invest in changes to our criminal management? How do we make a difference?
Does anyone want to say things in support of prison? If we revamp the prison system, what things should we keep? What do prisons do right?
And, what are the next steps for a community willing to invest in changes to our criminal management? How do we make a difference?
Prisons should basically be a mix between a school and a mental institution. If you are a loser and fucked up, your personal issues should be treated and you should get into a position of not being a loser any more (e.g. get a regular degree, apprenticeship, on which it does not say "done in prison"). You should have to stand up every day and have a normal workday to get used to that.
You should have to stay there for as long as you are a threat to society or as long as your situation has not changed and it is likely that you will commit the crime again.
So everything that is already that should be kept, everything else we can get rid of. I would personally say, start with socializing them again, then we have an incentive to reduce prison populations by keeping people out, who do not belong there in the first place. As always, when I make this comments I am a hopeless optimist: Do not worry, it is already happening.
Also something to cheer you up, America: Where do you think ISIS comes from? If you look for a group of losers, just turn to your local (on HN often praised) European prison.
You should have to stay there for as long as you are a threat to society or as long as your situation has not changed and it is likely that you will commit the crime again.
So everything that is already that should be kept, everything else we can get rid of. I would personally say, start with socializing them again, then we have an incentive to reduce prison populations by keeping people out, who do not belong there in the first place. As always, when I make this comments I am a hopeless optimist: Do not worry, it is already happening.
Also something to cheer you up, America: Where do you think ISIS comes from? If you look for a group of losers, just turn to your local (on HN often praised) European prison.
Maybe there's a lesson in the fact that few here are willing to support prisons as an industry....it's not very easy to defend this particular system.
I don't think people here is anti-prison, just that they disagree with how prisons fail to operate as correctional/rehabilitative facilities and instead produce more hardened criminals.
There should be two types of prisons; one for people that will be released one day and one for people that will never be released. The never-to-be-released ones can be the nastist hellholes (if the aim is punishment), but the to-be-released ones need to concentrate on making sure that the prisioners are less likely to offend again once released.
I have often thought the solution to the reoffending problem is to fill the prisioners day with heaps of novel activities so that each day is spent learning new things (doesn't really matter what as long as it is not criminal). The aim would be that by the time the prisioner has finished their sentence their old life and self will be forgotten. The human brain only has so much capacity and if you fill it with enough novelty you will overwrite all the old bad information and behaviours.
VR has the ability to make this cheap and effective.
I have often thought the solution to the reoffending problem is to fill the prisioners day with heaps of novel activities so that each day is spent learning new things (doesn't really matter what as long as it is not criminal). The aim would be that by the time the prisioner has finished their sentence their old life and self will be forgotten. The human brain only has so much capacity and if you fill it with enough novelty you will overwrite all the old bad information and behaviours.
VR has the ability to make this cheap and effective.
The never-to-be-released ones can be the nastist hellholes (if the aim is punishment)
I object. They're still human, and as they have been deprived of their freedom, we (society) have been entrusted with caring for them. Even the death penalty (quite flawed as it is) may be better in some sense, morally, than "the nastiest hellholes".
I object. They're still human, and as they have been deprived of their freedom, we (society) have been entrusted with caring for them. Even the death penalty (quite flawed as it is) may be better in some sense, morally, than "the nastiest hellholes".
I was not arguing for making the never-to-be-released prisons hellhole, just that they are the only prisons you can inflict punishment. Punishing those people that you are going to release is stupid beyond imagination.
> stupid beyond imagination
I was punished. Spanking when I was younger, grounding when I was older. Without these consequences, I would be a worse adult.
We may disagree about degree, but "stupid beyond imagination" is an overstatement.
I was punished. Spanking when I was younger, grounding when I was older. Without these consequences, I would be a worse adult.
We may disagree about degree, but "stupid beyond imagination" is an overstatement.
So what happens when you end up in the wrong prison? What happens if you spend 50 years in the hellhole and then are proven innocent?
>The aim would be that by the time the prisioner has finished their sentence their old life and self will be forgotten.
I know you're talking about the nice prison here, but if you hold that belief then what happens to the innocent person who has had 50 years of hell?
>The aim would be that by the time the prisioner has finished their sentence their old life and self will be forgotten.
I know you're talking about the nice prison here, but if you hold that belief then what happens to the innocent person who has had 50 years of hell?
I am not suggesting that the never-to-be-released prison should be a hellhole, just that it is the only one that can be a hellhole. Treating prisoners that you will release badly is totally stupid.
Your argument is a very good one why no prison should ever be a hellhole because there are no prisoners that certain to be in the never-to-be-released category.
Your argument is a very good one why no prison should ever be a hellhole because there are no prisoners that certain to be in the never-to-be-released category.
One of the few charities (that I'm aware of) in this area: http://justdetention.org/
What I find amazing here is the pathetic modesty of all the requests. It's all about selling onion powder in the commissary or granting model prisoners the right to wear non-white shirts, not (say) the abuse of plea bargaining or the ludicrous length of mandatory sentences.
the abuse of plea bargaining or the ludicrous length of mandatory sentences.
I don't think those really have to do directly with prisons though. It's a related topic.
I don't think those really have to do directly with prisons though. It's a related topic.
One thing that kills me about prisons is that they achieve exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to be achieving. They add more psychological trauma, they create more anger and they force people to focus on what they've done in the past instead of what they could be doing different in the future.
The problem is that there are always more important things to worry about in our society than reforming prisons. Not much has changed since prisons have been invented, really. Recidivism is unacceptably high. The solution is not more discipline. It's more respect, more compassion, more dignity, more learning, and more showing that life doing other things is as rewarding if not more than doing the things that lead to prison.
The problem is that there are always more important things to worry about in our society than reforming prisons. Not much has changed since prisons have been invented, really. Recidivism is unacceptably high. The solution is not more discipline. It's more respect, more compassion, more dignity, more learning, and more showing that life doing other things is as rewarding if not more than doing the things that lead to prison.
If you find this topic interesting, I would recommend that you check out the documentary "13th" on Netflix:
https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741
https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741
Prisons are dysfunctional and cost too much. Why isn't GPS-tagging, curfew and public record sufficient to protect society?
Reform could only be somewhere where >90% people are non-criminal e.g. army, monastery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
Reform could only be somewhere where >90% people are non-criminal e.g. army, monastery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect
Prisoners should be measured. The same way that some companies have performance measurements for its employees, prisons should have behavioural measurement for the prisoners. If the behaviour improves based on a certain grade, then the prisoners get rewarded, otherwise they get punished
How about measuring the prison instead, reform more crooks, the guards get a pay bonus. However, knowing how incentive schemes are normally gamed, they will probably resort to lobotomising the inmates.
so sad. im glad that in the age of the internet stories like this can come out and reach many people. I just hope that the next generation of leaders who grew up on the internet exposed to many differing ideas will have the courage/determination to find real solustions fix problems like this.
let the prisoners run the entire prison but have the guards monitor them at all times.
like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
The notion that there should be no prisons at all is nuts in my view, there must be a way for people to protect themselves from others who repeatedly act violently.
But the fact that prisoners frequently have to face rape is sick and shows how dysfunctional the current system is. I even read some time ago an article that stated that the US is the only country in the world where more men than women are raped. (due to the fact that so many men are raped in prison)
What I personally believe would be a good way to treat this issue is to have prisoners work in the private sector while their payment will largely be used to pay for prison and to repay their victims for the damage they have caused them. The prisoner is set free once he has paid for all damages. (or as much as is reasonably possible)
Prisons will have an incentive to make sure that their prisoners earn as much as possible (trainings and education), victims will receive payments for damages and the prisoners themselves will have an incentive to get out of prison as soon as possible. Of course this can't be done with every type of felony and there's the question if damages are always accurate.
Also with this approach some types of felonies cannot be punished. One example would be drug abuse. You are only harming yourself and since no third party can claim damages it also would not be punished. (this alone would hugely reduce prison population)
You could even make the case that selling drugs would be legalised since there's clearly a buyer willing to buy and consume it who's not hurting any third parties directly by his choice.
I believe it is more reasonable to have prison sentences reflect the damage caused instead of ideology and prison life be more about making it up to the victims (as far as it is possible) instead of creating the most nasty, brutal place imaginable and having people suffer there.
It's probably also a better lesson for an offender to have to repay someone for destroying his car than subjecting him to repeated rapes which will likely break him psychologically.
But the fact that prisoners frequently have to face rape is sick and shows how dysfunctional the current system is. I even read some time ago an article that stated that the US is the only country in the world where more men than women are raped. (due to the fact that so many men are raped in prison)
What I personally believe would be a good way to treat this issue is to have prisoners work in the private sector while their payment will largely be used to pay for prison and to repay their victims for the damage they have caused them. The prisoner is set free once he has paid for all damages. (or as much as is reasonably possible)
Prisons will have an incentive to make sure that their prisoners earn as much as possible (trainings and education), victims will receive payments for damages and the prisoners themselves will have an incentive to get out of prison as soon as possible. Of course this can't be done with every type of felony and there's the question if damages are always accurate.
Also with this approach some types of felonies cannot be punished. One example would be drug abuse. You are only harming yourself and since no third party can claim damages it also would not be punished. (this alone would hugely reduce prison population)
You could even make the case that selling drugs would be legalised since there's clearly a buyer willing to buy and consume it who's not hurting any third parties directly by his choice.
I believe it is more reasonable to have prison sentences reflect the damage caused instead of ideology and prison life be more about making it up to the victims (as far as it is possible) instead of creating the most nasty, brutal place imaginable and having people suffer there.
It's probably also a better lesson for an offender to have to repay someone for destroying his car than subjecting him to repeated rapes which will likely break him psychologically.
I'm all for prison reform, but other than the bits where officers do demeaning things to the prisoners, this really just becomes a list of things that prisoners feel would make their lives more comfortable.
Well yeah, no shit. Of course they want it better in there. If they got all this, they'd eventually be complaining that they should have computers and playstations.
Prison isn't supposed to be torture (physically or mentally) but it's also not supposed to be better than poor people have it. If poor people can't be taken care of to the point they have these things (and I think they should!) then I don't think starting with the prisons is the right way to go.
Well yeah, no shit. Of course they want it better in there. If they got all this, they'd eventually be complaining that they should have computers and playstations.
Prison isn't supposed to be torture (physically or mentally) but it's also not supposed to be better than poor people have it. If poor people can't be taken care of to the point they have these things (and I think they should!) then I don't think starting with the prisons is the right way to go.
You're correct that most of these are asking for prison to be a more tolerable place to live. Making prison a rough experience should encourage inmates to avoid crimes which will send them back. The article's author contends that the current conditions in the prison where he serves his time re-enforce criminal behavior and empowers "gang recruiters, extortion, and other threats" by depriving prisoners. He has the advantage of seeing what happens each day, but has a sample-size issue in that he's only experienced a small number of prisons. I would be interested in seeing his proposals tested in a controlled studies. None of them seems difficult or expensive to implement.
> Making prison a rough experience should encourage inmates to avoid crimes which will send them back.
RoW actually shows that this basic approach does not work at all.
RoW actually shows that this basic approach does not work at all.
I don't think poor people are regularly locked in cages with HIV positive serial rapists.
Right as "fucked" as the poor can be in this country prisoners have even less agency and are even more vulnerable to the abuses of the system they get thrown into.
But one could start with the small things: "yelled at...". Totally unnecessary imho. Why do this?
[deleted]
> If poor people can't be taken care of to the point they have these things (and I think they should!) then I don't think starting with the prisons is the right way to go.
If you really care about this, then you should advocate that poor people don't produce children anymore so that at least "born poor", that is a common cause of poverty, is mostly eliminated.
If you really care about this, then you should advocate that poor people don't produce children anymore so that at least "born poor", that is a common cause of poverty, is mostly eliminated.
>then you should advocate that poor people don't produce children anymore so that at least "born poor" //
That's a false conclusion. You could heavily tax the rich to ensure everyone [who had a child] had sufficient to live on and so no one would be "poor" (you'd have poorer, but not poor per se). There are probably further additional possible ways that the problem could be solved and hence further possible outcomes that the parent could advocate and maintain consistent logic.
That's a false conclusion. You could heavily tax the rich to ensure everyone [who had a child] had sufficient to live on and so no one would be "poor" (you'd have poorer, but not poor per se). There are probably further additional possible ways that the problem could be solved and hence further possible outcomes that the parent could advocate and maintain consistent logic.
Young kids who have done something incredibly stupid usually end up in these places. They are then immediately put in a situation to fuck or fight. This behavior will often escalate to extreme violence or to be broken psychologically, then owned by other inmates, bought and sold like property. Can that kind of behavior be unlearned? I doubt it... I would argue that at best, people can only learn to do something better, but always lurking in the background.
This is only one of many of the bizarre insanities of prison life. I personally don't disagree with the idea of punishment or prison. I would however say that prisons are extremely dysfunctional.