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

Do We Still Need Prisons?

volteface.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 105 posts

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#41

Post by OJFord »

onion2k wrote: post #12

There's a very interesting thought experiment devised by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smitg and outlined at the end of the excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. Quoting from the book; “Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Que…

It's a bit interesting, but I don't think it's actually relevant to the OP.

Reason #1: The vast majority of people haven't been victim to something that's put someone in prison anyway.

Reason #2: At most, it would seem the 'solution' to the thought experiment is changes to legislation; not "scrap it all!"

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#42

Post by levemi »

jasonjei wrote: post #27

My question is why do we still punish people with computer or financial or corruption crimes in prison for long terms? Yes, I understand some price should be paid, but extremely long prison terms for non-violent crimes such as hacking computer systems seem strange. In fact, some of these wrongdoers actually are very intelligent, and having them make amends with their intellect could be a just way to perform community…

You don't think someone like Madoff deserves the worst punishment we have available for current non-violent offenders? He destroyed thousands of lives, ruined their savings and their ability to retire. Many people will probably have a far worse quality end of life experience because of him. The opportunities for the children of his victims is much diminished. It was an incredibly damaging crime and he's in prison right now bragging about it still.

He's not ashamed of all the hurt he's caused.

You think someone like that shouldn't be in prison? Ok, well if you do I still disagree. That guy belongs where he is for the time he has to be there for.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#43

Post by levemi »

winter_blue wrote: post #15

I think only the individuals that pose a real and significant physical safety threat should be put behind bars (i.e those that are likely to physically attack others). For everyone else (incl. white-collar criminals, non-violent drug offenders, etc.), we need to figure out a more cost-efficient, recidivism-minimizing corrections system.

White collar crime can be so much worse than violent crimes. If some desperate person punches you in the face that should be punished, but someone who destroys the lives of so many by engaging in fraud in the financial sector leading to billions in public money spent to bail out companies, lives destroyed has done far worse than punch a single person in the face.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#44

Post by beeboop »

jasonjei wrote: post #27

My question is why do we still punish people with computer or financial or corruption crimes in prison for long terms? Yes, I understand some price should be paid, but extremely long prison terms for non-violent crimes such as hacking computer systems seem strange. In fact, some of these wrongdoers actually are very intelligent, and having them make amends with their intellect could be a just way to perform community…

If you remove the risk of prison for nonviolent offenders, you're creating a world where large businesses and their owners will no longer care whether they do something illegal, they will only care about the risks of getting caught versus the potential profit to be made. You turn the criminal justice system into a risk analysis that happens in some board room. There will be no real detriment to rich people for breaking the law - worse case scenario they lose some money, the equivalent of you ruining the financial security of thousands of people or causing billions in irreversible environmental damage and getting a speeding ticket for it.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#45

Post by jasonjei »

levemi wrote: post #42
jasonjei wrote: post #27

My question is why do we still punish people with computer or financial or corruption crimes in prison for long terms? Yes, I understand some price should be paid, but extremely long prison terms for non-violent crimes such as hacking computer systems seem strange. In fact, some of these wrongdoers actually are very intelligent, and having them make amends with their intellect could be a just way to perform community…

You don't think someone like Madoff deserves the worst punishment we have available for current non-violent offenders? He destroyed thousands of lives, ruined their savings and their ability to retire. Many people will probably have a far worse quality end of life experience because of him. The opportunities for the children of his victims is much diminished. It was an incredibly damaging crime and he's in prison rig…

>You don't think someone like Madoff deserves the worst punishment we have available for current non-violent offenders?

No, no--I am merely asking and want to know the purpose of these long terms. I don't believe I mentioned Madoff in particular but in general with respect to things like drug distribution, computer hacking, etc. As I said in the beginning, I believe there is some price to be paid. My confusion is why we sentence some people to 1 year or to 10 years in prison for a non-violent crime, and then some for 200 years. So my observation of the non-violent criminal justice is that punishment is not meted out in a deterministic fashion, even if it's intended to rehabilitate. While if you are convicted of killing somebody, it is almost guaranteed you will lose your freedom indefinitely.

I know of someone who was accused of hacking a computer network without actually producing much harm aside from snooping at info, yet he was asked to serve 2 years.

I'm not educated or well-informed in these aspects. You seem to be mistaking my asking of the question with advocating a position. I apologize if I have offended you.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#46

Post by Glyptodon »

All the talk about home incarceration type programs seems like it wouldn't work out all that well with a population that (I assume) mostly rents and (I assume) often has trouble keeping their finances in the black without any punitive measures.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#47

Post by screaminghawk »

CM30 wrote: post #5

We're always going to need some prisons. Because as much as many people are possible to rehabilitate, there's always going to be a (rather small) percentage that are simply dangerous to just about everyone and everything around them. See, some of the worst examples of serial killers. You don't really want to risk the possibility of letting them near anyone else, and house arrest (or a traditional psychiatric ward) mi…

I agree we should be sending less people to prison. But then the problem becomes how to punish people for doing these things?

Some people do not have the money to pay compensation. Some people will avoid community service. Some people will disobey home detention orders. What do we do with these people now?

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#48

Post by douche »

noir_lord wrote: post #31
chillingeffect wrote: post #8

Spoken like a truly out of touch academic. Here's an incident that took place last week in a town near me: A man with a beer and a condom approached a random couple on the sidewalk and declared his intention to have sex with the woman. When she declined, two of his brothers and a fourth man appeared from behind a bush, beat the man into submission and dragged the woman back to their apartment. They barricaded the doo…

Not sure why you got downvoted, I'm pretty left wing but people who pull the kind of shit in that story really do belong in prison, it doesn't have to be a harsh american-style prison but it has to be secure, some people just shouldn't be in society because of the threat they pose to the rights of others. It's not just about punishment it's about protecting law-abiding members of society.

There are still crimes where the punishment should be a short rope and a tall tree. Forty years of a roof over your head, a bed to sleep in, and three squares a day is insane.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#49

Post by [deleted] »

beeboop wrote: post #44
jasonjei wrote: post #27

My question is why do we still punish people with computer or financial or corruption crimes in prison for long terms? Yes, I understand some price should be paid, but extremely long prison terms for non-violent crimes such as hacking computer systems seem strange. In fact, some of these wrongdoers actually are very intelligent, and having them make amends with their intellect could be a just way to perform community…

If you remove the risk of prison for nonviolent offenders, you're creating a world where large businesses and their owners will no longer care whether they do something illegal, they will only care about the risks of getting caught versus the potential profit to be made. You turn the criminal justice system into a risk analysis that happens in some board room. There will be no real detriment to rich people for breaki…

[deleted]

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#50

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

onion2k wrote: post #12

There's a very interesting thought experiment devised by the human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smitg and outlined at the end of the excellent book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson. Quoting from the book; “Let me ask you three questions,” he said. “And then you’ll see it my way. Question One: What’s the worst thing that you have ever done to someone? It’s okay. You don’t have to confess it out loud. Que…

Not sure I follow. Are you saying robbers, rapists, carjackers, thieves, murderers, drunk drivers causing vehicular manslaughter etc etc should NOT be punished because some other "bad" behavior is not punishable by law in today's society?
Post reply on HN