On "deterrence" in prison, ex-convict life, and executions

[Riria]

I've bolded the part that needs to be addressed. Incarcerating an innocent person, fining an innocent person are also monstrous. You shouldn't be able to convict innocent people, period. and you shouldn't be able to punish people without conviction.

Emphasis mine. All I can say is... no. There's a perfectly practical reason why the burden of proof for civil cases is lower than for criminal cases. Why wrongful fining is seen as a less serious externality than wrongful imprisonment or wrongful execution.

Because, unlike giving back someone's years or giving back someone's heartbeat, giving back someone's money is entirely doable if the mistake is caught later on.

[Albrenia]

I've bolded the part that needs to be addressed. Incarcerating an innocent person, fining an innocent person are also monstrous. You shouldn't be able to convict innocent people, period. and you shouldn't be able to punish people without conviction.

Emphasis mine. All I can say is... no. There's a perfectly practical reason why the burden of proof for civil cases is lower than for criminal cases. Why wrongful fining is seen as a less serious externality than wrongful imprisonment or wrongful execution.

Because, unlike giving back someone's years or giving back someone's heartbeat, giving back someone's money is entirely doable if the mistake is caught later on.

You know, you say a lot of stuff I agree with.

[Diopolis]

This is not an inherent quality of the state. And while gangs don't exactly hold elections, they have in the past been representative of the communities they come out of and rule over(think some of the NI and palestinian groups).

How can you confuse gangs with revolutionaries or separatist warlords?Gangs usually only want economic benefits. They won't interfere in politics unless Ithey have to.Military action is clearly not in their interest.

There's no brightline between the two, especially in areas of ethnic strife. Cartels are arguably both. IS is arguably both. Certain NI groups are definitely both.

[Wheatonleks]

Well you’re certainly correct in that the judicial system is responsible for the wrongs and the wrongs

What is a gang and why are they wrong? Because they wield power against he innocent, because they have a monopoly on force, because they’re corrupt? How do we implicate gangs without implicating the biggest gang of them all, the state?

Gangs get together and use violence to take advantage.To them, we ordinary people are like lambs.

Sounds a lot like police to me

Police aren’t gonna protect you, if you wanna be safe take some self-defense courses and get a gun

[Wheatonleks]

It is obvious that they have committed a very serious crime to incarcerate someone for life.They're locked up, obviously, to prevent them from continuing their crime.Maybe we've killed people, sold drugs or raped.

I think there's a worrying cultural trend with people nowadays of vastly underrating how rehabilitatable rapists actually are. Good thing most legislators haven't bought into the hysteria yet.

Well to be fair a good deal of legislatures are also rapists so they probably have some ulterior motives going on

[Albrenia]

Gangs get together and use violence to take advantage.To them, we ordinary people are like lambs.

Sounds a lot like police to me

Police aren’t gonna protect you, if you wanna be safe take some self-defense courses and get a gun

The police have actually protected me in several situations in my life. Although I'm not an American and I'm not sure I'd trust the US cops nearly as much as my own nation's.

[Wheatonleks]

You don’t ask what the alternative to a tumor is, you remove it

Probably not a majority, but at least a large fraction of those in jail have done some pretty fucked up shit to get there. Not sure it's wise to go with 'fines, humiliation or death' in those cases.

You’d be surprised, I’d be willing to bet that the mass-majority of people are in jail for victimless crimes, like doing illegal drugs and jaywalking, or just sleeping while homeless, the amount of people who are in there for being like serial killers is microscopic compared to everyone else

[Ankenland]

I don't think life imprisonment makes sense as a punishment either. I don't think any prison sentence longer than 20 years makes sense. But rather than execute most people who would normally get over 20 years, I would reduce their sentence to 20.

For crimes which can be rationally deterred, would this not reduce the power of deterrence, and thus increase crime?

For crimes which could not be rationally deterred, but where there is no reasonable hope of rehabilitation, would this not put society at risk?

For any case where the cost of 20 years of incarceration exceeds the cost of execution and the person has no projected use to society greater than their liability, would this not waste the resources of the law-abiding citizens whose interests the system is meant to promote?

It might sound absurdly optimistic, but it's a statistical reality that the majority of rapists don't need anything harsher than 5ish years imprisonment with therapy provided to reintegrate into society with low risk of recidivism. Moral outrage at how evil sex crimes "feel like" they are does nothing but cloud your judgement.

Why spend hundreds of thousands on five years of imprisonment and therapy, instead of just doing what a veterinarian can do to your dog in one day for a few hundred?

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I don't think life imprisonment makes sense as a punishment either. I don't think any prison sentence longer than 20 years makes sense. But rather than execute most people who would normally get over 20 years, I would reduce their sentence to 20.

For crimes which can be rationally deterred, would this not reduce the power of deterrence, and thus increase crime?

For crimes which could not be rationally deterred, but where there is no reasonable hope of rehabilitation, would this not put society at risk?

For any case where the cost of 20 years of incarceration exceeds the cost of execution and the person has no projected use to society greater than their liability, would this not waste the resources of the law-abiding citizens whose interests the system is meant to promote?

It might sound absurdly optimistic, but it's a statistical reality that the majority of rapists don't need anything harsher than 5ish years imprisonment with therapy provided to reintegrate into society with low risk of recidivism. Moral outrage at how evil sex crimes "feel like" they are does nothing but cloud your judgement.

Why spend hundreds of thousands on five years of imprisonment and therapy, instead of just doing what a veterinarian can do to your dog in one day for a few hundred?

Because imprisonment and therapy can actually rehabilitate said person into someone who contributes to society and the economy, something which would be obviously impossible for a corpse. And the death penalty is far more expensive than regular sentences:
https://www.thebalance.com/comparing-th ... on-4689874
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
https://deathpenalty.org/facts/5-myths-death-penalty/

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Sounds a lot like police to me

Police aren’t gonna protect you, if you wanna be safe take some self-defense courses and get a gun

The police have actually protected me in several situations in my life. Although I'm not an American and I'm not sure I'd trust the US cops nearly as much as my own nation's.

Americans may not trust the police.I have the impression that American police always put their hands on guns at any time in case of shooting at any time.Police elsewhere are not so nervous.This guy might be biased against the police.
But I want to say, if everyone is a gun policeman,"I have a bigger barrel. I want to be the boss!"

[Albrenia]

I agree that the 'always have a hand on your gun' principal I've seen some US police use is a particularly clear communication of the relationship between US citizens and their police.

Where I live it's not unheard of for police to pull you over and then help you change a tyre if the tire is unsafe.

*shrug*

[Riria]

For crimes which can be rationally deterred, would this not reduce the power of deterrence, and thus increase crime?

I think the reduction would be negligible. Nobody thinks "Ahh, 20 years in prison if I get caught is not that big of a risk." while also thinking "Damn, 25-30 years in prison if I get caught is too big of a risk.". It becomes a wash at that point.

For crimes which could not be rationally deterred, but where there is no reasonable hope of rehabilitation, would this not put society at risk?

Yes it would. What's your point?

For any case where the cost of 20 years of incarceration exceeds the cost of execution and the person has no projected use to society greater than their liability, would this not waste the resources of the law-abiding citizens whose interests the system is meant to promote?

The system is meant to promote the idea that human life has value in and of itself. The ability of the individual human to be of gainful use to society is something that's added on top of that, not that entirely determines it. Otherwise, we would consider laziness a crime. I'm sure you wouldn't want to live in that kind of world.

I'm not going to also go into the argument that typically cost of execution is extremely high, as I do think that argument is more circumstantial than people like Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia would like to admit.

Why spend hundreds of thousands on five years of imprisonment and therapy, instead of just doing what a veterinarian can do to your dog in one day for a few hundred?

Because I'd rather live in a society that guarantees bodily integrity than one that doesn't, regardless if I am not personally ever in danger of having that measure be applied against me.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

I heavily believe In rehabilitation.

It makes humanitarian sense and it makes economic sense.


Most people enter to jail for petty crimes,
And exit hating the government and begin shunned from scocoety.

It is a broken system.
I could go on but I’ll leave it at that for now.

[Riria]

And exit hating the government and begin shunned from scocoety.

The reason why ex-convicts are shunned by society in the first place is that a lot of people think rehabilitation doesn't work, regardless if it works or not. Making prisons better at rehabilitating inmates won't make those inmates magically more accepted. We need a large scale cultural shift.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

And exit hating the government and begin shunned from scocoety.

The reason why ex-convicts are shunned by society in the first place is that a lot of people think rehabilitation doesn't work, regardless if it works or not. Making prisons better at rehabilitating inmates won't make those inmates magically more accepted. We need a large scale cultural shift.

Yes, but auctally focusing on rehabilitating bad people and therapy for minor convictions would go a long way.
I guess s comes from other problems such socio economic status.
If people ar route in a desperate position, what choice do they have.
I see your point that we will need deeper fixes, but no reason do do what can be done on this end now.
Besides, it should auctally save money for the prison system.

[Riria]

Yes, but auctally focusing on rehabilitating bad people and therapy for minor convictions would go a long way.

No, it wouldn't go a long way. It would barely do anything. For example, since we are talking about socioeconomics, imagine you would be teaching marketable skills to an inmate who is doing time for theft. Imagine he genuinely wants to learn and he does so. So what do you think happens after he gets released? Nothing. Employers still wouldn't hire him because they would still think "oh no he's an ex-convict". In fact this is worse than you doing nothing, because you wasted all that money on teaching the inmate stuff while he was imprisoned.

We need to do both in lockstep instead of pretending that solving only one side of the equation will be effective.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Yes, but auctally focusing on rehabilitating bad people and therapy for minor convictions would go a long way.

No, it wouldn't go a long way. It would barely do anything. For example, since we are talking about socioeconomics, imagine you would be teaching marketable skills to an inmate who is doing time for theft. Imagine he genuinely wants to learn and he does so. So what do you think happens after he gets released? Nothing. Employers still wouldn't hire him because they would still think "oh no he's an ex-convict". In fact this is worse than you doing nothing, because you wasted all that money on teaching the inmate stuff while he was imprisoned.

We need to do both in lockstep instead of pretending that solving only one side of the equation will be effective.

Perhaps simply if successfully rehabilitated keep it our of the public record, simply saying rehabilitated.

Also, I’m sure there are some places with an interest for an educated worker.

[Riria]

Perhaps simply if successfully rehabilitated keep it our of the public record, simply saying rehabilitated.

Also, I’m sure there are some places with an interest for an educated worker.

That is, indeed, a solution that some countries have chosen to utilize. (to be specific, the solution of telling employers that it's illegal to ask their employees and interviewees if they have a criminal record at all)

Now, I'm not exactly a fan of making the system less transparent, but it does actually work, yes.

[Diopolis]

The police have actually protected me in several situations in my life. Although I'm not an American and I'm not sure I'd trust the US cops nearly as much as my own nation's.

Americans may not trust the police.I have the impression that American police always put their hands on guns at any time in case of shooting at any time.Police elsewhere are not so nervous.This guy might be biased against the police.
But I want to say, if everyone is a gun policeman,"I have a bigger barrel. I want to be the boss!"

We also have an issue with the police simply not doing their job of protecting citizens, especially in major cities or way out in the country(suburbs not as much).

[Krasny-Volny]

Singapore has what is arguably the lowest crime rate in the world, and back when I lived there, also the highest execution rate next to Saudi Arabia.

I’d say the harsh penalties inflicted there for the most minor of offenses have created a deterrent among the small, densely concentrated population. There’s simply nowhere to hide from the very efficient police force. They will find you and you will face those stiff consequences, guaranteed.

It’s harder to create that mentality in the US due to varying levels of antipathy and less trust of the police and government in general, plus the fact that it’s far easier to get away with crime due to the massive size of the country and population. My theory is that this balances out the deterrent effect that might have worked for Singapore.

[Krasny-Volny]

Americans may not trust the police.I have the impression that American police always put their hands on guns at any time in case of shooting at any time.Police elsewhere are not so nervous.This guy might be biased against the police.
But I want to say, if everyone is a gun policeman,"I have a bigger barrel. I want to be the boss!"

We also have an issue with the police simply not doing their job of protecting citizens, especially in major cities or way out in the country(suburbs not as much).

Police response times are dreadfully slow in the inner city and rural areas.

[Ankenland]

The system is meant to promote the idea that human life has value in and of itself.

Let me tell you a thing or two about the ideas and values that the system is meant to promote.

Because I'd rather live in a society that guarantees bodily integrity than one that doesn't, regardless if I am not personally ever in danger of having that measure be applied against me.

Why?

Also, why should I, or anyone, pay money to warehouse and attempt to rehabilitate, for example, pedophiles, in order to accommodate your personal agenda about other people in your society?

[Riria]

Let me tell you a thing or two about the ideas and values that the system is meant to promote.

Implying that more socialistic countries were hit much less hard by COVID and anti-COVID measures than more capitalistic ones? It's horrible for everyone involved.

Because I'd rather live in a society that guarantees bodily integrity than one that doesn't, regardless if I am not personally ever in danger of having that measure be applied against me.

Why?

Basic empathy?

Also, why should I, or anyone, pay money to warehouse and attempt to rehabilitate, for example, pedophiles, in order to accommodate your personal agenda about other people in your society?

Because it works? Castrating the pedophiles won't bring the child victims' innocence back nor erase their emotional trauma.

By the way, you know exactly what it would mean for me to support castration for rapists IRL. Since I talked about it indirectly in this topic.

It would mean that I would want my country to violate European law that would require leaving the Union in order to violate.

[Estanglia]

So... uh... any alternatives to suggest?

You don’t ask what the alternative to a tumor is, you remove it

Right, we're gonna remove the central basis to our system of punishment, and not replace it with anything.

I have a feeling that this isn't the smartest idea, mainly because the only other way of keeping dangerous criminals out of society is to kill them. Which, morality aside, has the big problem of a fuckton of crimes all ending in the same punishment, meaning there is no deterrent stopping someone from committing these crimes if they've already committed one. If you're gonna get hung for assaulting that guy, might as well kill him to remove a witness.

Or, if you don't use the death penalty, you have no way of forcibly isolating criminals from the rest of society, which might actually be worse.

To be specific, my opinion is that the only crime that deserves the death penalty is an inmate murdering another inmate.

Why should the death penalty not be applied in every case where the alternative would be life imprisonment?

Couple of reasons, in my opinion.

One, the potential that the person jailed for life is innocent. You can free someone from jail and compensate them for the time they lost, but you can't un-kill someone. As long as there's the potential that the person you're killing is innocent, you shouldn't kill them.

Two, I personally find life imprisonment a harsher punishment than the death penalty. with the death penalty, you're giving them an easy way out. They spend a couple of years, maybe a decade or so, in jail, then their punishment is over. With life imprisonment, they could be spending potentially decades rotting in jail, and when they do die it's probably not gonna be as quick as when they're executed.

Also, why should I, or anyone, pay money to warehouse and attempt to rehabilitate, for example, pedophiles, in order to accommodate your personal agenda about other people in your society?

This question can be extended to literally any form of punishment, including yours.

For example;

Why should I, or anyone, pay money to mutilate and/or kill, for example, pedophiles, in order to accommodate your personal agenda about other people in your society?

[Riria]

Which, morality aside, has the big problem of a fuckton of crimes all ending in the same punishment, meaning there is no deterrent stopping someone from committing these crimes if they've already committed one.

That is a great point as well, yes. The fact that in my country killing someone after raping them will literally *quintuple* your sentence is a great reason not to do it, even if you (as in the criminal) account for the fact that you're covering your tracks by doing so.