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

At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 457 posts

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#251

Post by Fjolsvith »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #198
dalbasal wrote: post #126

I think it's worth thinking about the history of incarceration, for context. Until fairly recently, prison wasn't really the way most punishments worked. They did hangings, beatings, shaming, banishment... Imprisoning people long term is expensive, and kings probably couldn't have afforded anything like a modern scale prison system. The closest thing was more slavery than imprisonment, and economically self-sufficien…

In Britain under the Bloody Code, you could (and would) be hanged, or deported for the most trivial offences. The prevailing view was very much of the pour encourager les autres mould. Steal items worth 12 pence? Hanged. Lesser amount? Cut a hand off. If lucky, commuted and deported for indentured servitude in the colonies. Treason? Hanged, drawn and quartered. As we remember from history classes, stealing, murder an…

> Not very popular with the hang 'em and flog 'em types on the right though.

And the left. Tough on crime gets any politician elected.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#252

Post by athenot »

bko wrote: post #129
icedchocolate wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: Healthcare, that’s not true. The US spends more on health care per capita than many systems with free healthcare (Australia, UK, Canada). You pay the most and receive the least. Like the previous commenter, I am increasingly surprised that this system is still supported, instead of one that costs less and provides more (e.g. the fact that states bargain with drug companies individually, rather than federally, mea…

> I am increasingly surprised that this system is still supported, instead of one that costs less and provides more So you're for decreasing the amount of public spending on health care in the US?

Making healthcare more expensive doesn't make it better.

As an example, the price of Clopidogrel (Plavix), developped in France is sold 5x more expensive in the US than in France. Do patients in the US experience better outcomes by paying more? No, it's the same drug.

"Providing more" for healthcare, means better overall health, fewer avoidable deaths and longer life expectancy.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#253

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

whack wrote: post #191
dalbasal wrote: post #126

I think it's worth thinking about the history of incarceration, for context. Until fairly recently, prison wasn't really the way most punishments worked. They did hangings, beatings, shaming, banishment... Imprisoning people long term is expensive, and kings probably couldn't have afforded anything like a modern scale prison system. The closest thing was more slavery than imprisonment, and economically self-sufficien…

Ironically enough, long term imprisonment is quite possibly the worst way of inflicting punishment, while simultaneously being more cruel and antithetical to rehabilitation. Whatever our goals, there are surely better ways of achieving them. https://outlookzen.com/2016/06/18/we-need-cruel-and-unusual-...

> Whatever our goals, there are surely better ways of achieving them.

I thought the goal was to make the most money off of minorities?

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#254

Post by wtdata »

debacle wrote: post #244
lb1lf wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rehabilitation IS societally useful. However, it does require that the prime focus is rehabilitation rather than punishment. In my native Norway, rehabilitation has been the focus to such an extent that foreign media come to do stories on the 'holiday camps' prison time is served in. It somehow works, though. Recidivism is very low. Here's a few examples on how inmates do their time -Education is encouraged - whether…

There is an inherent racism to a lot of US sentencing and prison policies, as well as an assumption that those who commit crimes are irrevocably criminal. It's a very dated view of why people become criminals.

If we really assume data proves (I never saw a proper argument for that same data that just didn't choose to ignore quite some important other pieces of data) that the US system is intently racist against people io colour, than - that same data - proves even more strongly that the US judicial system is inerently sexist against men.

It's the same (flawed in my opinion) argument and the same data, but only one part of it is ever mentioned, which leads me to believe, this is just ideology at work.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#255

Post by europsucks »

e40 wrote: post #190
dalbasal wrote: post #126

I think it's worth thinking about the history of incarceration, for context. Until fairly recently, prison wasn't really the way most punishments worked. They did hangings, beatings, shaming, banishment... Imprisoning people long term is expensive, and kings probably couldn't have afforded anything like a modern scale prison system. The closest thing was more slavery than imprisonment, and economically self-sufficien…

I think it's debatable, after generations of experience, that prisons make people more criminal. I've heard over and over again, in the words of criminals themselves (on podcasts, in new stories), that they got into the career part of being a criminal while behind bars.

Unless you compare that to the number of people who became rehabilitated, that is just anecdotal evidence, though.

I've heard it a lot, too. But "a lot" means still less than 100 times. There are millions of prisoners.

Not saying it isn't the case, just saying I'd like to have more data.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#256

Post by andy_ppp »

cgriswald wrote: post #148
andy_ppp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's only going to happen for all the people who would become criminals. Would you become a criminal if I paid you $75k for life afterwards, assuming the court found you were in poverty and needed the money (probably most criminals). I for one know I absolutely would not commit crimes no matter how much money you paid me.

I’m struggling to see how your argument isn’t that people are born criminals. If you pay people to commit crime, you get more crime. That’s irrespective of any bizarre immunity you personally think you have to the incentives. Imagine being poor and having a child. You are such a law-abiding fellow that you are going to watch your child struggle every day and maybe go hungry some nights when you could do one simple cr…

It’s never been tried paying people to not commit crime has it so both of our theories need some testing to proves who is correct. I personally think it would be very effective; it’s not as if there would be no consequences for repeat offenders or people who took the money and carried on breaking the law. I don’t think you’re thinking clearly about what I’m suggesting at all.

One thing we 100% do know is that jail is not working to stop reoffending in the vast majority of cases, and as the article suggests this is at great expense to the tax payer.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#257

Post by conanbatt »

7952 wrote: post #179
dalbasal wrote: post #126

I think it's worth thinking about the history of incarceration, for context. Until fairly recently, prison wasn't really the way most punishments worked. They did hangings, beatings, shaming, banishment... Imprisoning people long term is expensive, and kings probably couldn't have afforded anything like a modern scale prison system. The closest thing was more slavery than imprisonment, and economically self-sufficien…

I would much rather be beaten, banished, or shamed than go to prison. And honestly, I think I would rather die than be locked up for any amount of time. Yet all these punishments are seen as less humane than locking someone in a small room with scary people for years. It just shows how little people can really imagine what it is like.

This is actually a missed point in modern times. If people could ask to get lashes or prison, I bet a very large number would choose lashes.

So which punishment is more humane? Turns out we are picking for the experience of "the innocent" not for the rights of the "guilty".

In these lines I have commented before: the main moral issue of modern prison systems is that they don't value liberty, so merely taking away someones liberty does not quench the thirst of revenge that pays off for the politician rhetoric.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#258

Post by Fjolsvith »

throwawaymath wrote: post #184
chmod775 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the very least, rehabilitation doesn't work very well. WHAT! > Rehabilitation sounds societally useful, but the failures have been overwhelming. Justice? Deterrence? WHAT! Mind sharing some sources? IMHO you have it completely backwards. I can point to plenty of European countries (Norway, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) that focus on rehabilitation, not punishment. Their recidivism and overall crime-rates rates are…

I think you misinterpreted their point. They don't mean rehabilitation as an ideal doesn't work. They mean rehabilitation as the goal of modern American incarceration has failed. People don't get rehabilitated. They become institutional criminals.

> People don't get rehabilitated. They become institutional criminals.

This is a blanket statement and not realistic. I've been through the system and knew a lot of guys who abhorred becoming institutional criminals.

Please cite sources to support your claim.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#259

Post by gruez »

ferros wrote: post #72

Cost is not always the first/most important consideration for incarceration. Britain shipped convicts to the other side of the world (Australia) at one time.

Are travel costs more expensive and/or imprisonment costs cheaper back then? I'd think that a one time boat ride was cheaper than holding someone for a decade or more.

Re: At $75K, housing a prisoner in California now costs more than a year at Harvard

#260

Post by conanbatt »

kybernetikos wrote: post #221
dalbasal wrote: post #126

I think it's worth thinking about the history of incarceration, for context. Until fairly recently, prison wasn't really the way most punishments worked. They did hangings, beatings, shaming, banishment... Imprisoning people long term is expensive, and kings probably couldn't have afforded anything like a modern scale prison system. The closest thing was more slavery than imprisonment, and economically self-sufficien…

I do find it interesting that probably many of these people would not commit crime if they were paid $50k per year to not commit crime (which would save money!). Unfortunately you could never do this as an actual policy because of the incentives, it's just interesting that they end up forcing us to spend so much money so unproductively. I absolutely believe that there is room for something innovative to be done here,…

Yes, you cant pre-pay specific people not to commit a crime.

I do think a UBI (basic income) would reduce crime enormously, if it were confiscated when they are in prison. It would be a powerful economic incentive.

Post reply on HN