Live data from Hacker News

Do We Still Need Prisons?

volteface.me

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#71
post #28
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you say it clearly doesn't? Sure it doesn't deter ALL but none?

Have you ever chosen not to do something because you want to avoid prison? Or is there other stuff that's stopping you from breaking laws?

I have. Of course I have my own personal code, as most every man does, but that does not always align with the law, and so where they conflict, rational calculations are made. I like to think that my code is good enough that in a society of just Mes we could get on well enough in anarchy, but there will never be a society of just Mes, there are lots of differing codes out there and the law helps ease tensions between them, plus my code certainly has flaws even if I can't change or see them yet.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#72
post #67
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most damaging things Clive Stafford Smith has done is to give public support for Moazzem Begg, who was almost certainly a high-ranking member of al Qaeda ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg ). (Sure, Begg should have gotten a fair trial -- he would have gone to court had the charges not been dropped, probably because the intelligence services didn't want to reveal all the intel they had gathered o…

In every human society in history, there have been people who choose to rob, rape and kill. There's no pleasant way to deal with such people, but it is the role of the state to deal with them, or you have anarchy. It isn't the role of the state to prevent "emotional damage", "bad wives" or "bankers". The point of the question (which is an interesting question regardless of who asked it) is that we should challenge wh…

Who said that we should?

States have justified their actions by many different codes of ethics. I know my answer to the legitimate role of the state: to protect individual rights.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about sociopaths? They can become serial offenders, learning all the while how to apologize more effectively each time they are apprehended. If a crime has little downside, then crime will grow.

Go re-read his post. Apologizing might be acceptable for some crimes and with some victims, but not all. Others may demand compensation or more punitive measures. There's nothing there about crime having little downside; if the community requires you to repay a victim for everything you stole from him, and wants you to do a bunch of hard labor (community service) in addition, that sounds like a pretty big downside to…

...and they leave the courtroom and you never see them again. This is a guy who thought taking your TV was easier than working and buying his own. No way is he going to get me another one. Its preposterous.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#74
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes and No, I'd sooner my taxes pay to keep someone away from society who needs to be than pay to execute them even if it costs more, I'd sooner living that society even if it costs more. Fortunately where I am the death penalty is a settled issue.

Honest question, why is putting someone in a box for the rest of their life more morally acceptable than killing them? I personally find life imprisonment to be far more horrifying than death.

I understand the concerns around the death penalty, namely the possibility of a wrongful conviction with the inability to appeal once the sentence is carried out. But just comparing the punishments, why is one morally better than the other?

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>what is the physical damage to you if you get raped? I don't think the parent was suggesting only physical damage be considered. They discussed several examples of emotional damage. EDIT: And I'm not really sure why you're calling their post reductive either, it seemed fairly nuanced, and ended with "It's a very deep question. Not something that HN will answer in a thread."

The OP kind of was when they brushed away the burglary they experienced as, not much monetary loss and the lost feeling of security was back went away after a few weeks . To feel secure in one's home is f*&(ing important. I'm not equating it to rape, but it's that intangible feeling of lost of trust you cannot quickly brush away.

Emotional damage is interesting. In many senses it's entirely one's own fault, if one feels emotionally damaged / offended / distraught. But it's an uncommon mental discipline to get yourself to feel differently. That intangible feeling of lost trust can be quickly brushed away, the OP is an example of that since they did it in weeks, similarly rape actually doesn't end up being a huge deal for some victims. But it's pretty weird to start drafting up policies (like "let's punish less 'cause come on, he just threatened you with a knife and took your wallet, he didn't actually hurt you and your material losses were only the cost to get a new wallet and the small time it took to cancel any credit cards") that would only work on a small portion of the population with a certain level of mental discipline. The fact that some have it to various degrees and some don't is enough to make any suggestion requiring it to be pointless unless that suggestion includes "and kill / severely culturally shame anyone who does not have the discipline".

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#76

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…

We (the human species) have done better than (modern) prisons; prisons are a compromise that makes the system of building and maintaining orderly society less effective and more expensive than simply hanging the bastards but in theory that compromise has enough positive tradeoffs to be worth it in the end.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#77
post #55
post #10

I think author forget that prison ALSO means that we are isolating someone dangerous, someone that is dangerous for society, that's why we lock him up. There will be no other solution/place for murderers etc. Period. I really would like that authors of that kind of articles go to areas where there is a lot of gang activities and live there for couple of months. I am sure they would change their mind.

Are most of people locked up murderous maniacs or other constant danger to rest of us?

Most? No.

Enough that we still need prisons? Yes.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#78
post #54
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…

One of the most damaging things Clive Stafford Smith has done is to give public support for Moazzem Begg, who was almost certainly a high-ranking member of al Qaeda ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg ). (Sure, Begg should have gotten a fair trial -- he would have gone to court had the charges not been dropped, probably because the intelligence services didn't want to reveal all the intel they had gathered o…

> One of the most damaging things Clive Stafford Smith has done is to give public support for Moazzem Begg, who was almost certainly a high-ranking member of al Qaeda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moazzam_Begg). (Sure, Begg should have gotten a fair trial -- he would have gone to court had the charges not been dropped, probably because the intelligence services didn't want to reveal all the intel they had gathered on him and his associates).

I don't know enough about this person to say one way or another whether he was a high ranking al qaeda member or not. But _even if he were_ I don't think insisting on a habeas corpus rights for detainees or decrying torture is a _damaging_ thing at all. It was up to the state; who originally imprisoned him and almost certainly tortured him to prove his guilt. They didn't even attempt to do this; and it likely had nothing to do with not wanting to reveal intel -- the 'court' he'd have been charged in had little to no due process, and the evidence was presented to a government tribunal, not to the defendant.

I think Smiths point there wasn't that there was some problem-meanness correlation, but that the justice system as it is structured doesn't even try to have a sensible metric by which to sentence by. I think framing it in terms of damage done to society is a reasonable one. Under such a metric, (unarmed) robbery should be treated with much less severity -- and daresay rehabilitative measures as opposed to just imprisonment -- than rape or murder. That seems reasonable, and not particularly evil as worldviews go.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#79
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and No, I'd sooner my taxes pay to keep someone away from society who needs to be than pay to execute them even if it costs more, I'd sooner living that society even if it costs more. Fortunately where I am the death penalty is a settled issue.

Honest question, why is putting someone in a box for the rest of their life more morally acceptable than killing them? I personally find life imprisonment to be far more horrifying than death. I understand the concerns around the death penalty, namely the possibility of a wrongful conviction with the inability to appeal once the sentence is carried out. But just comparing the punishments, why is one morally better th…

My price-sensitive futurist perspective would rather we pay the one time $30k price for a basic cryonics suspension than outright kill them or keep them locked up for life. (Caveats that it would then be seen as cruel not to suspend terminally ill patients, old people, and so on, so the sudden increase in cryonics demand would surely improve the methods and decrease the cost...) But in the Current Year and Current World locking them up for life is strictly better than just killing them, because I think that sometime within the next 50 years we have at bare minimum a decent shot at finding out how to drastically expand lifetimes (perhaps de facto immortality) and additionally alter a person's self in subtle ways that still constitutes a continuation of identity, and then we can directly rehabilitate. (Somewhat like Demolition Man, except done right. ;)) I also think the major powers can squeeze by and last that long, specifically no entering of a new dark age even if say the US split up or even if the several social order crises currently underway made some big dents. Without the possibility of living forever with a non-dangerous mind, I actually don't see much reason to prefer life in prison over death, I see a big reason (cost) to prefer death, and if I was sentenced any time prior to the early 1900s I'd ask for the guillotine instead.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#80
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 only deep if you want it to be deep. In my opinion, it's as "deep" as any other meaningless question. As one in the title, by the way. Because the very assumption that legal system exists to help some commoner — you — seems absurd to me. It's not you who puts people in jail. It's not you who has the guns and manpower to maintain the existing regime and rules. It's not even you, who "feeds" those who have guns and manpower — regardless of what you think, you don't really chose to pay taxes, you just have to, because if you don't, then you are the "criminal" who must be punished.

These questions seem deep (which actually translates to "without an obvious answer") only if you assume that you are choosing who should be punished, what is a crime and what is a punishment. Then, unsurprisingly, it is quite hard to explain rationally the current state of things — so that "your" choices would seem "right" enough. Because that's just not the case.

But if you try to answer the question about "what is right" from the "Golem's" point of view — the legal system, the government, the "social norm" — it actually is pretty clear and simple. "Right" is what keeps it stable. Punishing somebody, who makes somebody else miserable doesn't really help it — it's ok for people to be miserable, it's not ok for them to turn on the Golem. It doesn't have to be rational or efficient, it doesn't have to help anybody or protect anybody. The moment it becomes something more than a mere human — and it long time is — it doesn't care for human needs or worries. Feeding murderers on behalf of other people, while keeping them in a closed institution doesn't really help anybody or is rational, it isn't about justice or whatever — it just works, it just keeps the system stable. On the other hand, people using psychedelic drugs and living in hippie communes doesn't hurt people, but hurts the system. That's why things are what they are.

Post reply on HN