Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My life after 44 years in prison

interactive.aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#81

Post by rtpg »

Asbostos wrote: post #56

What I've started to realize about people is that you can't influence them all with deterrents. No matter how long the sentence, or how permanent the memory of the justice system (8 months in prison for robbery, 50 years later), none of that is bad enough to actually stop people committing crimes in the first place. Essentially, people aren't rational. They don't act in their own self interests. I saw this also when…

There's a decent amount of experimental evidence to counter this realisation though.

The yakuza basically never carry guns around anymore because the charges for carrying around a handgun are so high that it's just not worth it.

We always say that "well if someone wants a gun they're gonna get it", which is pretty true. But some deterrents can slow down the transition from " I don't like that guy" to "I'm going to kill him" (hell, if we stop at "going to beat him with a bat", that's still a bit better).

People aren't rational, but things like advertising works, so some form of deterrents must work too I think.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#82

Post by blisterpeanuts »

vacri wrote: post #80
cb18 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if your meaning to say we should do away with criminal sentencing? I would think your not saying that, but just so no one gets the wrong idea. For people that commit crimes that are highly disruptive to society, on any level, from assaults to massive ponzi schemes, be these 'not particularly rational' individuals or otherwise, the sentence is a deterrent on the one hand, and on the other hand a deterrent…

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the mix.

There's a tremendous body of evidence suggesting the opposite. Maybe not so much for first time offenders, but people with some experience in the criminal justice system are remarkably knowledgeable about the law, sentences, and exactly what consequences will ensue for particular behavior.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#83

Post by zanny »

jacquesm wrote: post #46
zanny wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except carte blanche sentencing on intent is not enough. The attempted murderer after 10 years may be incredibly vindictive and immediately seek revenge, possibly mass murder in retaliation for his incarceration. Likewise, the 25 year sentenced individual might wholly repent after five years, and thus sit in prison for another twenty with no rehabilitative meaning, he just rots to serve as an example to others. You n…

> The attempted murderer after 10 years may be incredibly vindictive and immediately seek revenge, possibly mass murder in retaliation for his incarceration. I'll take that chance. For every how many people that just spent a decade in jail do you think there will be one that manages to squeak by observation and hearings for a decade? How many people would you be prepared to jail to save one life of an innocent person…

Thats the point. You cannot just assign a sentence and presume rehabilitation at the other side. Crimes along the entire violence spectrum that require removal from society all require case by case consideration of when, if ever, the criminal is suitable to reenter society.

A lot of them never should, that never repent and would always be a threat to others. But then you have those that rot in jail for decades after being completely rehabilitated by policies like mandatory minimums and extended sentencing like mentioned in this article waste their lives and our tax dollars on something that a board of active professional psychoanalyists should be able to see is a shut case.

It is easy to deceive an inefficient, corrupt, or lazy system when given per-case inspective authority. But it is not easy in the presence of a rigored well implemented system. Rather than try to simplify criminal justice to sentencing based on crime committed with fixed sentences taken from a textbook, we should appeal to reach the global maxima of justice, which includes curtailing the injustice of keeping those no longer dangerous behind bars perpetually.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#84

Post by cb18 »

vacri wrote: post #80
cb18 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if your meaning to say we should do away with criminal sentencing? I would think your not saying that, but just so no one gets the wrong idea. For people that commit crimes that are highly disruptive to society, on any level, from assaults to massive ponzi schemes, be these 'not particularly rational' individuals or otherwise, the sentence is a deterrent on the one hand, and on the other hand a deterrent…

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the mix.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it".

With all respect, I don't see how this sentence is relevant to what I wrote. I get that your trying to use it to support the next sentence, but I don't see how it does that either.

Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the mix.

They do actually. You can look at the length of a sentence as corresponding roughly to a cost benefit analysis pertaining to the given crime. The cost being the cost to incarcerate the person, and the benefit being the person's inability to commit a similar crime for X number of years. So for really bad crimes that carry a really long sentence, the benefit to society of there not being a potential recurrence of the criminal's acts outweighs the cost of the incarceration.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#85

Post by rl3 »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #82
vacri wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the mix.

There's a tremendous body of evidence suggesting the opposite. Maybe not so much for first time offenders, but people with some experience in the criminal justice system are remarkably knowledgeable about the law, sentences, and exactly what consequences will ensue for particular behavior.

How do you reconcile that with a very high recidivism rate?[0]

If anything, you're disproving your own argument.

[0] http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#86

Post by duncan_bayne »

alextgordon wrote: post #78
duncan_bayne wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it makes it worse , because of the physical endangerment involved. But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him. If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.

Consider that if this hypothetical thief were to be put under house arrest instead of in prison, the state could save enough money to buy you a new phone .

Except that the taxpayers would then be forced to pay reparations for the criminal behaviour of another. A.k.a. moral hazard.

Why not do both? Put him under house arrest, and compel him to buy me a new phone.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#87

Post by vacri »

cb18 wrote: post #84
vacri wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the mix.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". With all respect, I don't see how this sentence is relevant to what I wrote. I get that your trying to use it to support the next sentence, but I don't see how it does that either. Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the…

I don't know if your meaning to say we should do away with criminal sentencing? - sorry, I should have clarified that disposing of excessive sentences does not mean disposing of sentences altogether.

> They do actually.

The US has extremely long sentences. It has an incredibly high incarceration rate - higher than South Africa in it's apartheid prime, higher than China or Russia ever had, and yet crime there is no better than in it's contemporary developed-nation allies. In fact, for the one crime that is most directly and easily comparable - murder - the US is atrociously higher than it's contemporaries (a rate of ~4.8 vs ~1.0-1.5). The ridiculously long sentences in the US are not making the US any safer than it's contemporaries.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#88

Post by rl3 »

cb18 wrote: post #84
vacri wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the mix.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". With all respect, I don't see how this sentence is relevant to what I wrote. I get that your trying to use it to support the next sentence, but I don't see how it does that either. Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the…

Your cost benefit analysis there is some mighty cold calculus. While I agree there's utility in protecting society from violent offenders, your equation doesn't consider the ethical costs of locking people away for long periods of time.

If you believe the criminal justice system to be about reform rather than punishment, then the first question to ask is "Is this person reformed, or should they remain in prison?".

If the answer is the former, and they're still behind bars, then something's very broken with the system. There are innumerable accounts of genuinely reformed prisoners—completely changed people—that pose no danger to society, being left to rot in prison on the account of their unduly harsh sentencing.

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#89

Post by jrimclean »

cb18 wrote: post #84
vacri wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the mix.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". With all respect, I don't see how this sentence is relevant to what I wrote. I get that your trying to use it to support the next sentence, but I don't see how it does that either. Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the…

I agree with you, but once a person is in the prison system, the goal should be rehabilitation because almost all prisoners will re enter society at some point. The problem is that the prison system isn't very good at rehabilitation as evidenced by the high rates of recidivism. Ask yourself this: does prison, as it exists today, make convicts better people?

Re: My life after 44 years in prison

#90

Post by cb18 »

vacri wrote: post #87
cb18 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that criminals for the most part don't think "ah, I can commit this crime, I will 'only' get 5-10 years" and "oh, this crime would be 50 years - in that case I won't do it". With all respect, I don't see how this sentence is relevant to what I wrote. I get that your trying to use it to support the next sentence, but I don't see how it does that either. Extremely long sentences just don't add much to the…

I don't know if your meaning to say we should do away with criminal sentencing? - sorry, I should have clarified that disposing of excessive sentences does not mean disposing of sentences altogether. > They do actually. The US has extremely long sentences. It has an incredibly high incarceration rate - higher than South Africa in it's apartheid prime, higher than China or Russia ever had, and yet crime there is no be…

sorry, I should have clarified

ok, I see.

the US is atrociously higher than it's contemporaries (a rate of ~4.8 vs ~1.0-1.5)

What is that a rate of, murders per 100k or something?

Maybe the US just has a population and/or conditions that are more prone to committing murder, that doesn't mean the country should scale back it's punishment of murderers. It's highly doubtful that the longer sentence length(is the US's longer on average?) is somehow contributing to a higher murder rate.

What did you think about how I described sentence length as being a function of cost-benefit analysis?

That isn't to say that I think all sentences are optimum, or even near optimum, some have gotten completely out of whack, or altogether unnecessary, drug crimes for example.

Post reply on HN