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

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#91

Post by pink_dinner »

Grishnakh wrote: post #64
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

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…

"if someone steals my TV, gets caught, and the punishment is for him to buy me a new TV and fix my door that he broke and another 100 hours of lawn care on top of that, that's a lot cheaper and better for society than sticking him a prison for several years."

If the the criminal is stealing your TV, do you actually think they will have the money to pay it back? There are plenty of cases where a judge forces a person to pay money back and the person just doesn't pay it back or doesn't have the money.

Even the guy from "The Wolf of Wallstreet" hasn't paid the millions he owes. I just don't think this will deter petty crime.

"The main idea isn't going soft on crime, it's letting the victims decide on the punishment"

What if, as a victim, I decided that the person that stole my TV needed to have his hands chopped off?

Your method seems to be more based on emotion and retribution than our current system.

It may be more expensive, but I don't see a problem with our current system in terms of deterring crime. I don't mind paying more for something that will help society.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#93

Post by nradov »

Grishnakh wrote: post #64
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

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…

Who would be stupid enough to allow a known burglar to return and repair the door? I would never put my family and other possessions at risk that way. Plus I would have hired an honest worker to fix the door long before the hypothetical burglar was caught and sentenced. These ideas only seem sensible in the context of an ivory tower philosophical debate.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#94

Post by ap22213 »

nickff wrote: post #19
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…

You should at least be comparing expected outcomes (if not worst possible outcomes) rather than actual outcomes. Especially because your thought experiment is subject to extreme (literal) survivorship bias; no murder victim will answer your hypothetical. Other crimes such as carjacking, which has a 50% death rate for the victim, should be punished very severely even if the victim survived. In addition, in cases where…

Where'd you pull the 50% statistic? In the U.S. it seems it's more like fewer than 14 people die for every 38,000 carjackings.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#95

Post by ap22213 »

IsaacL wrote: post #54
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…

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…

Putting 'rob' alongside 'rape and kill' seems like you're equating the levels of severity.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#96

Post by rurban »

Sure. The US needs to prolong their racist and anti-communist policies, that's why they came with their current prison system afterall.

Nixon improved the system to ensure better voter turnout for his kind (20% less democrates votes and get blacks from the streets), Clinton improved the system for more cheap slave labour (which worked great for centuries to make the US the greatest country of all) and helped private prison incentives. Mandatory sentencing, war on drugs, reducing accountability on law enforcement and justice.

Actually helping improving the crime rate is not the goal, the goal is entirely business and political. The crime rate went down due to Roe v. Wade btw, getting poor people access to birth control. That's why the right-wing states are fighting that. It would diminish their advantages of the current imprisonment system.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#97

Post by mbcrower »

rurban wrote: post #96

Sure. The US needs to prolong their racist and anti-communist policies, that's why they came with their current prison system afterall. Nixon improved the system to ensure better voter turnout for his kind (20% less democrates votes and get blacks from the streets), Clinton improved the system for more cheap slave labour (which worked great for centuries to make the US the greatest country of all) and helped private…

The right-wing states want higher crime?

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#98

Post by epx »

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…

Machiavelli said, the man forgets the loss of a father sooner than the loss of property. Imagine you worked 5 years to buy something and it is robbed. Isn't it emotional damage? Human rights people tend to separate rights in boxes, while in fact most rights are indeed human rights.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#99

Post by epx »

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…

Machiavelli said, the man forgets the loss of a father sooner than the loss of property. Imagine you worked 5 years to buy something and it is robbed. Isn't it emotional damage? Human rights people tend to separate rights in boxes, while in fact most rights are indeed human rights.

Re: Do We Still Need Prisons?

#100

Post by eggestad »

We actually don't send people to prison (impost sanction) to make them stop. 0.1% of any population will break laws no matter what.

The real reason for imposing sanctions is that 80% of law abiding people would break any and all laws if there was not a threat of sanction.

Post reply on HN