Ask HN: Any advice for someone getting out of prison after 18 years?

> prisons are not real punishment

I think Aaron Swartz would disagree.

> punishing them with the clear intention of feeling good in some way

This plays some role, but I'd say the biggest reason people give in favor of having prisons is rational: Deterrence. If crimes aren't punished, what stops people from stealing when they want something they can't afford? What stops the strong from beating up the weak for fun, for profit, or as a way to resolve disputes in their favor? What stops the weak from shooting the strong because they finally get tired of being beaten up? What reason is there to adhere to contracts and agreements necessary for effective commerce if it would be more beneficial to one party to break them?

If you agree that punishment is necessary, but prison is somehow deficient as a punishment, what's the alternative? The punishment has to be sufficiently undesirable to cause most people to avoid crime in order to avoid the punishment. In addition, if it's going to be implemented in the US, it can't be cruel and unusual punishment since that is strictly Constitutionally prohibited, and if it's going to be implemented in a relatively free and democratic society, it has to show respect for generally accepted human rights principles. This excludes solutions like lashing, waterboarding, more extreme torture, massive expansions of the death penalty (I believe England as late as the 1500's would hang homeless children for stealing clothes to keep warm in the winter), or collective punishment (punishing someone else instead of or in addition to a criminal, e.g. many authoritarian regimes are willing to punish opponents by jailing, torturing, and/or killing their innocent friends, relatives, and children).

I do think that US criminal justice could be better. Currently many crimes are punished too harshly, sometimes sentences are inconsistent, current implementation of plea bargaining sometimes leads to terrible injustices, public defenders are woefully underfunded, the education system doesn't do a good job of covering these issues, and life is far too difficult for people after a felony conviction (discrimination against workers with felony records is legal and widespread; this sort of discrimination shouldn't be illegal, but culturally we need to be more willing to let people have second chances).

> predict future criminals from their Facebook data etc, and just send those people somewhere else

Sending someone to Siberia because there's a possibility that they might commit a crime in the future? Welcome to Soviet Norightsistan, comrade.

If his offense was because of drugs/alcohol abuse (which is likely as something like 80% of crimes are), he should seek out Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous. His incarceration experience there would be commonplace.

Many people in those groups have "run-ins" with law enforcement and a large percentage are themselves felons (DUI/Drug possession) and are on probation.

I would also recommend he focus his energy (initially) on trades which have a rougher edge, like construction & oil services, metalworking, etc...They are tough jobs, no doubt.

However, these fields have plenty of opportunity, a chance to make a decent living, get paid weekly (sometimes in cash), and the people are less subjected to background checks.

Once he is off probation and can explain his "gap" with real work history, he will be more likely to be accepted in society. He can then focus on education and re-training.

However long it takes to make them not be worth it, though no minimum sentences. An normal of 30 years might do it, with some real incentives for reintegrating into society upon release as well as possible time of for good behavior (but not getting into fights is not enough to qualify for good behavior).

I agree, it is pretty strict but that is because it is a very serious crime due to the direct impact the gun has on people. Steal the ATM, break into the place in the night, sell cocaine, whatever, but don't fucking threaten peoples life.

> if someone can pull up a study showing that prison sentences don't have any deterrent effect over other forms of punishment then I'd accept I'm wrong...

Certainly: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm

This is not some joe-schmoe study either, from the executive summary: "Fifty studies dating from 1958 involving 336,052 offenders produced 325 correlations between recidivism and (a) length of time in prison and recidivism or (b) serving a prison sentence vs. receiving a community-based sanction."

In particular: "The essential conclusions reached from this study were:

1. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour.

2. On the basis of the present results, excessive use of incarceration has enormous cost implications.

3. In order to determine who is being adversely affected by prison, it is incumbent upon prison officials to implement repeated, comprehensive assessments of offenders’ attitudes, values, and behaviours while incarcerated.

4. The primary justification of prison should be to incapacitate offenders (particularly, those of a chronic, higher risk nature) for reasonable periods and to exact retribution."

Summary points 1 and 4 are key: Prisons are not effective deterrence, but they are great tools for indirect retribution suffered by the victim(s).

Also in response to your last comment "I'd be somewhat shocked [..]": There are plenty of things that goes against simple human intuition--that's what science is for. Believe the facts, and disregard intuition.