DescentBB

Inspired by the inspiring commentary in the Simpson thread, why not ask a different question?

Is there a point to imprisonment?

What is supposed to be accomplished by locking someone up?

Who benefits?

How do they benefit?

Studies show that once one is imprisoned, recividism rates are alarmingly high; prison doesn't seem to be \"working,\" if indeed it was meant to \"work\" at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism

Prisons are suppose to \"correct\" people. But they're privately owned so they're ran as cheaply as possible. For example, a low calorie diet keeps the inmates weak and costs less (two birds). The government pays a certain amount per prisoner so the goal is to stack as many in one spot as possible. 2 bunks per cell is what you see in the movies. Generally prisons are designed to have less walls in each building to house more people.
I think in a perfect world you would have 1 suite per prisoner, where you would be let out for college level classes in prison. By the time you're released you have a BA.

Octopus wrote:Prisons are suppose to "correct" people.

But they don't (see above); moreover, it is unclear by what mechanism, exactly, they're theoretically supposed to "correct" people.

Kind of like throwing spilled salt over your left shoulder - it seems everyone thinks it will do something, but nobody can explain what or why.

Be it known that I am against the concept of prison except as a temporary holding place prior to trial.

I always thought prison was supposed to be like a hard core \"time out\".

\"We sentence you to two hundred and fifty years of 'time out', with no chance of parole.\" I guess it works.

Octopus wrote:"We sentence you to two hundred and fifty years of 'time out', with no chance of parole." I guess it works.

Why not simply kill them?

Because we have to acknowledge that a percentage of our inmates actually are innocent. Knowing this we can't just kill everyone with a life sentence.

edit:
If the system was perfect at deciding who's guilty we'd just shoot everyone in the face for rape.

Octopus wrote:Because we have to acknowledge that a percentage of our inmates actually are innocent. Knowing this we can't just kill everyone with a life sentence.

edit:
If the system was perfect at deciding who's guilty we'd just shoot everyone in the face for rape.

Does it matter whether you suck their life away slowly or speedily if they're innocent OR guilty?

Only to the prisoner and those 5 kids who now belong to the state.

edit:
He/she should just be glad they're in america...i mean the United Sates.

Octopus wrote:I think in a perfect world you would have 1 suite per prisoner, where you would be let out for college level classes in prison. By the time you're released you have a BA.

Great. Smart criminals.

I would say that the purpose of imprisonment is two-fold: first it gets the criminals out of society, and second it takes away their freedom, which is certainly a punishment. There's no reason to find fault with the concept of imprisonment itself. It works.

The problem is that we don't have godly people overseeing it. The whole thing's a mess. Just like our government.

shaktazuki wrote:Does it matter whether you suck their life away slowly or speedily if they're innocent OR guilty?

I don't know .. and neither do you. The only person who can decide this is the prisoner. I think it would be great if you would give them the choice: die now, or spend you life in prison. I know what I would choose...

The point of prison is punishment, not all of the other gobbledygook.

Spidey wrote:The point of prison is punishment, not all of the other gobbledygook.

Exactly. If you don't punish, more people would commit crimes because there are no deterrents. Imagine a child without discipline?

shaktazuki,

It's clear you support an automatic death penalty rather than life imprisonment. I don't agree (see some of the past threads on the death penalty), but my question is:

Since you don't seem to believe imprisonment serves any purpose whatsoever, what would you do with those who are serving a less-than-life sentence? For example, let's say I am a reckless driver, kill someone, am convicted and sentenced to 10 years... what would you do to me instead of prison?

Foil wrote: Since you don't seem to believe imprisonment serves any purpose whatsoever, what would you do with those who are serving a less-than-life sentence? For example, let's say I am a reckless driver, kill someone, am convicted and sentenced to 10 years... what would you do to me instead of prison?

You pay restitution to the family, and if there is none to pay restitution to, nothing.

shaktazuki wrote:You pay restitution to the family, and if there is none to pay restitution to, nothing.

I disagree. This outlines the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. In a civil case, the idea is that you have violated an individual, and that restitution should be made on a personal level. In a criminal case, the idea is that you have violated your society, and you owe restitution to your society. I agree with this philosophy, because ultimately criminal activity effects everyone in the society. (In fact, that's how I'd delineate between civil and criminal cases- does what was done endanger people of the society, or simply cost them money/pain?) If you could get away with criminal activity just by eliminating all of the directly affected parties, you end up encouraging criminals to murder. Also, giving the parties involved restitution would encourage more embellishment & false accusations on the part of "victims" who are trying to make a quick buck.... I can see the justice system quickly becoming swamped with silly cases, while the real criminals get off free by becoming an even greater threat to society.

Remember, the two most basic functions of the government are to protect its citizens from the outside, and to protect its citizens from the inside.

I don't know about prison itself, but punishment for breaking laws, in a physical (not just fiscal) form needs to stay around. Breaking a law should carry an (approximately) equal pain-level of punishment no matter what rank of society you are in.... sadly, having more money usually means less pain (but more money payed, in the form of expensive lawyers) in the US.... But the ideal of the system is that a person will feel the pain equally no matter how rich/influential/popular they are.

snoopy wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:You pay restitution to the family, and if there is none to pay restitution to, nothing.

I disagree.... [T]he idea is that you have violated your society, and you owe restitution to your society.

If you can show how "society" gets "paid," I might eventually be willing to consider this idea cogent. As it stands, I reject it wholesale.

shaktazuki wrote:

Foil wrote: Since you don't seem to believe imprisonment serves any purpose whatsoever, what would you do with those who are serving a less-than-life sentence? For example, let's say I am a reckless driver, kill someone, am convicted and sentenced to 10 years... what would you do to me instead of prison?

You pay restitution to the family, and if there is none to pay restitution to, nothing.

So if the person I killed has no family... I owe no restitution to anyone, and can just go free?

shaktazuki wrote:

snoopy wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:You pay restitution to the family, and if there is none to pay restitution to, nothing.

I disagree.... [T]he idea is that you have violated your society, and you owe restitution to your society.

If you can show how "society" gets "paid," I might eventually be willing to consider this idea cogent. As it stands, I reject it wholesale.

On a small scale: community service.

On the large scale, "life sentence" or "death penalty" cases- the criminal has taken something that can't be repaid, and the extent of what can be given back to society is the security of knowing that the perpetrator has been prevented from acting again, thus they don't have to worry about being the next victim.

On the small scale they are paid back, on the large scale they are at least protected from being further harmed.

I'm also curious, shak:

Do you have kids, and if so, do you believe the \"time-out\" is similarly ineffective?

Foil wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:

Foil wrote: Since you don't seem to believe imprisonment serves any purpose whatsoever, what would you do with those who are serving a less-than-life sentence? For example, let's say I am a reckless driver, kill someone, am convicted and sentenced to 10 years... what would you do to me instead of prison?

You pay restitution to the family, and if there is none to pay restitution to, nothing.

So if the person I killed has no family... I owe no restitution to anyone, and can just go free?

Yes.

I'm also curious, shak:

Do you have kids, and if so, do you believe the "time-out" is similarly ineffective?

Yes. And, largely, yes.

snoopy wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:

snoopy wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:You pay restitution to the family, and if there is none to pay restitution to, nothing.

I disagree.... [T]he idea is that you have violated your society, and you owe restitution to your society.

If you can show how "society" gets "paid," I might eventually be willing to consider this idea cogent. As it stands, I reject it wholesale.

On a small scale: community service.

I don't agree that "society" gets "paid" by this. An argument can be made that operating upon the principle of uncompensated forced labor to those who were not damaged harms human relationships.

On the large scale, "life sentence" or "death penalty" cases- the criminal has taken something that can't be repaid, and the extent of what can be given back to society is the security of knowing that the perpetrator has been prevented from acting again, thus they don't have to worry about being the next victim.

I do not accept the notion of payment in terms of indemonstrables and intangibles; payment must take the form of the transfer of tangibles from one party to another.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Octopus wrote:I think in a perfect world you would have 1 suite per prisoner, where you would be let out for college level classes in prison. By the time you're released you have a BA.

Great. Smart criminals.

What, you don't want people educated ? Chances are that the lack of education got the "criminals" into prison in the 1st place..

Nowasdays the point of prisions is to keep offenders away from society and try to convince them not to do it again by punishment. The serverity of the punishment is mainly defined by the length of imprisonment. So, ppl w/ lifelong sentences could as well be shot, they are "out of the loop" and a financial burden.. Do I support that ? Don't know, haven't looked at the stats yet.

People are stingy with public school money, so do you think they want to pay to educate prisoners? They'd rather lock them up, out of sight, out of mind.

Last I read about 10 years ago it cost $100,00 a year to have 1 person in prison. I for one would rather the lifelong sentences be shot in the head before spending(wasting) that much money. But we'd need a pretty fool proof way of knowing they are gulty. Would get expensive frying to many innocent people.

shaktazuki wrote:

Foil wrote:So if the person I killed has no family... I owe no restitution to anyone, and can just go free?

Yes.

If you ever establish a society, remind me not to move there.

Foil wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:

Foil wrote:So if the person I killed has no family... I owe no restitution to anyone, and can just go free?

Yes.

If you ever establish a society, remind me not to move there.

No worries there!

Letting someone off with no punishment for the homicide of a victim with no relatives would set a precinct that would mean anyone with no relatives could be killed with no consequence would mean open season on a portion of society - as an example the homeless and the elderly.

That is the very definition of unjust - letting the circumstance of the victim(who in this example cannot speak) dictate the punishment rather than the facts of the actual crime.

AS for simple financial compensation, what happens when the perpetrator cannot pay?

shaktazuki wrote:I do not accept the notion of payment in terms of indemonstrables and intangibles; payment must take the form of the transfer of tangibles from one party to another.

Well, I'd argue that sufficient payment, for example for a human life, cannot be made, in any form. I don't think the point of life imprisonment & the death sentence is to pay those whom were violated back (be it society or individuals).... crimes that merit that level of punishment are so strong & permanent that there is no price that could possibly be enough to atone for the wrong done. At that point, it's the government's responsibility to restrain the criminal from being able to repeat such offenses.

If you want tangible payment, I'd argue that the most just method would be to have the crime paid "in kind"... plus something to compensate for the hassle/whatever... If you steal an apple, you pay an apple + back. If you steal a billion dollars, you should pay a billion + dollars back (now, for the question posed by flip... what if you don't have a billion dollars in equity to pay back?) Now, what if you kill someone? Payment back "in kind" would demand the criminal's death. What about rape?

Let me pose this question to you: How do you see this payment of restitution playing out? How will the society protect the widow and the orphan, who have no other voice to cry out for them?

fliptw wrote:Letting someone off with no punishment for the homicide of a victim with no relatives would set a precinct that would mean anyone with no relatives could be killed with no consequence ...

No. No consequences for involuntary manslaughter if there is nobody to make restitution to.

AS for simple financial compensation, what happens when the perpetrator cannot pay?

He gets sold into slavery until his debt is paid.

If you want tangible payment, I'd argue that the most just method would be to have the crime paid "in kind"... plus something to compensate for the hassle/whatever... If you steal an apple, you pay an apple + back. If you steal a billion dollars, you should pay a billion + dollars back

I agree.

(now, for the question posed by flip... what if you don't have a billion dollars in equity to pay back?) Now, what if you kill someone? Payment back "in kind" would demand the criminal's death. What about rape?

Death.

There is at least some point behind life sentences vs. death; for the former, if you make a mistake, the convict at least gets some of his/her life back.

As CDN_Merlin pointed out, an important point of criminal punishments is deterrent. Prison is not as effective of a deterrent as we would wish, but it does discourage some people from misbehaving.

I would resist a blanket death penalty because people in prison DO sometimes turn their lives around. I personally know a few who have.

For me, one of the primary reasons for prison is to keep dangerous people off the streets. If you are convicted of a violent crime, they should lock you up. DWI included here. After you have served your sentence, you get a second chance. Commit another violent crime and, we lock you up for a longer time. Third crime and its life (or death, depending on the situation).

Haha, I think castration should be a punishment.

Gosh... that would keep the movie \"idiocracy\" from coming true.

I know this is the wrong crowd for this, but: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le8451.htm

Update on info in the video from unrelated source: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Sold_as_n ... _1213.html

It seems to be a mix of real complaints and an unrealistic peacenic ideology, and it's not really much good until you separate one from the other.

To insinuate that prison is for the purpose of rehabilitation and not for punishment, for instance, is ridiculous. I think some of the precautions taken are right on, and I think pepper-spray does have a place, and tazers as well (not for general punishment, but for specific discipline). But when you represent the law, and yet have no regard for that same law in your representation, what are you? Just a tyrant. I would probably be lenient with guards responding to prisoners getting out of hand, but wrong is wrong, and it's wrong to abuse someone.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
To insinuate that prison is for the purpose of rehabilitation and not for punishment, for instance, is ridiculous.

By what authority do you presume to punish someone? Do you own them, that you may mold or break them as a dog? Did you spawn them, that you may chastise them as your children? And if neither, you have some explaining to do.

We as a society take upon ourselves the right to punish those who break laws that we have set for the protection of all. The answer is by the authority of the laws of the US of A, or more localized laws.

For a prison there must be laws to maintain order, and the guards are in authority over the inmates, under the authority of the prison administrators. The final authority is the law, though, and that is where their authority comes from. I, myself, don't presume to have any authority to punish anyone.

*EDIT: The Bible gives a precedent for governmental punishment, and says that the authority comes from none other than God himself:

Romans 13 wrote:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.

In my experience it is not a subject that lends itself to quick study, in this day and age (and culture), but that's certainly a necessary part of the whole picture.

I would also like to clarify this:

I wrote:I would probably be lenient with guards responding to prisoners getting out of hand, but wrong is wrong, and it's wrong to abuse someone.

What I mean is that I would not be looking to punish the guards for doing their job because of some misplaced empathy for the prisoners. But, looking back on it, "lenient" seems to imply a slackening of justice in favor of the guard (the "good guy"), and that's not at all my attitude. If I were head of a prison it would be my responsibility to ensure that the prison-guard's dealings with the prisoners is just, and I would take that as seriously as any other part of the job.

I think for the benefit of society prison is:

#1 a deterrent because the punishment of being locked in a cement box with bars for a door is supposed to be too great a price to pay for the commission of the crime.
#2 a punishment for those that don't see the wisdom in following the logic of #1....

Any program to reform criminals in prison is a side experiment not the prisons purpose.

The government doesn't want religious authority to mandate morality so the only hope we have for peaceful and relatively safe society is a deterrence system.

The only reason law abiding citizens don't slip into your house at night, slice your throat and steal your possessions is because the society we have works for them....It is less of a problem to earn a living and pay the tax to be protected.

I promise you if the tax collectors stop providing the deterrent that protects us we will start to dish out our own deterrents and punishments. If we don't we slip into chaos and some outside force that believes in law and order will use our condition as justification and take over the whole place to save us from ourselves and they will be the new tax collectors.

People don't like living in chaos, we like visiting it in limited ways for the thrill but we don't want to live there.