So if Dirk the douchebag kills four children and burns their parents alive he gets to be rehabilitated instead of sent to prison? Is that how that works?
Theoretically, but there a a couple of problems here. 1. You are assuming your example person has commuted these atrocities because he is evil, and real people aren't Disney villains-he probably has some pretty serious untreated mental health issues and genuinely needs help
And moreover 2. You are trying to strawman this agrugement. A vast majority of people in American jails are not guilty of murder let alone child murder and murder by fire. Most criminals are people who got themselves into bad places and couldn't easily get themselves out. Our jails are full of people who turned to stealing or selling drugs, or who just had issues using drugs. Seriously, over 45% of inmates are incarcerated on drug related charges. And nearly 19% of inmates have charges involving weapons, these are not charges related to killing people. Homicide, Aggravated assault, and Kidnapping combined only make up 3.3% of inmates.
Source: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
@xvarnah gave a history lesson-and one I would agruge is a little misguided.
Either way- that's not a majority of prisoners- and advocating policy for many based on the needs of few is irresponsible at best.
«The fucker who killed all those people at camp» is in isolation at the highest security level that exists in prison in Norway. He doesnt have contact with other inmates, any visitors or anything. And it is rehabilitation IN prison, not instead of prison. If you look at the statistics of repeat offenders in Norway or Sweden compared to the US, I think you’ll see it works.
What good does that do? Stop and slow down and go step by step- look at each facet. Why is crime illegal? It hurts society. It causes destruction or stability, commerce, emotional harm, etc. The loss of a human life is still the loss of a human life, and all potential that human had. If this is the nature of crime, we must look at the purpose of justice. Does justice exist to satisfy revenge, or to protect against further wrong and help prevent future wrong, as well as to restore victims of crime to as whole as possible a state?
If justice exists for revenge- that’s a problem. Revenge is not constructive. It is not prudent, and it is counter to the same facets of society which laws mean to protect. So if we make things illegal because they harm society, and we administer justice that harms society- then there is no purpose for this justice except to satisfy our emotions. Justice for the sake of emotion is mob justice and usually isn’t just- with guilt and severity of punishment and the like being based on nothing but how a person feels. That system is not a stable one where people can live their lives is it? Wondering when a mob might just decide to murder you for whatever reason they feel like with nothing you can do about it? That hurts technology and commerce and the general ability to live your life.
So the point of a justice system is to do that which is most prudent to protect society from harm, to prevent harm, and to take a destructive situation and salvage as much from it as possible. Simply punishing people doesn’t do any of that. Killing them prevents them from doing it again- but it leaves a bigger mess of unpaid bills and parentless children, jobs not being done and the like. Some people are so deprived and so dangerous that they cannot safety be allowed in society without supervision or at all. But most people in the criminal justice system made mistakes and we know people can learn from mistakes.
I had two friends who started dating. I’d known both for years. The guy decided to go street rave one night with the girl in the car. He lost control and crashed. She died a horrific death. That’s called manslaughter. This kid had never gone to any driving classes with the rest of us or been on even a kart track. He wanted to play racer. His car wasn’t set up for what he wanted to do and his skills weren’t either. It was a bad road to race on in bad conditions, and he had a passenger. Beyond common sense saying not to street race- every aspect of that makes it obvious he had no business in the world racing that night. If he had wanted to risk his own life that’s his business but he put another person in serious danger. And she died. it wasn’t just bad luck or a wrong move. It was stupid too to bottom. Her family spoke in his defense.
He didn’t do jail time. They were very angry at him. They were sad they lost their daughter and sister etc. But she was dead. Him going to jail wouldn’t bring her back- and after watching his live in girlfriend he planned to marry die in front of him because of what he did- he wasn’t going to do it again.
It’s been many decades and he hasn’t. He never raced again that anyone knows of. He drives like a saint. He went through a few years of being a drunk and a druggie, Near suicidal depression and self destructive behavior. And then.... he straightened his shit out. He cleaned up, got a career, got married, had a kid- raised them well. Sent them to college.
He deserved to die that night- not her. He didn’t make a mistake or have an accident- he willfully and obviously endangered a life by being completely reckless. I didn’t even mention the other car caught in the accident- hit so hard the passengers heads collided and smashed each other so bad that they both sport titanium faces and skull plates among other things. He did a terrible thing and had EVERY REASON to KNOW that would happen even if he didn’t intend it to.
But his life was spared. He could have walked a very different road than he did. I’ve seen lots of people die lots of ways. Shot, stabbed, OD, poison. I’ve seen friends and acquaintances on both sides of the court room defending against or seeking justice for crimes and been there myself a few times. All I know is that you can’t take anything back. We can only go forward.
I think it's pretty clear I'm talking about the murderous pieces of shit. Besides, you're begging the question. Crimes aren't illegal for any inherent common good, they're illegal because the people in power say so.
So we have to decide going forward wether the first wrong was enough suffering or if we feel the world needs more. If there’s going to be suffering at least we can let it be for a reason. Sometimes helping a person can be unpleasant for them. Sometimes people have trouble giving things up or healing. And we certainly can’t let people walk around free in society who aren’t ready to or don’t seem they’ll ever be. So there will be some suffering. Even a nice prison is still a prison and you don’t realize just how much you miss the feeling of freedom until it’s gone- so they will suffer no matter what- but we don’t have to pile on to it to satisfy our need to feel vengeance.
If you produce for me a document showing that ripping out fingernails with pliers has a 90% rate of preventing future crimes when done to prisoners- I’ll vote for an increase to the National plier budget. But if you tell me you just want to “make these bastards pay...” well shit man- you’re one bad day away from being right in there with them so you should be more careful what you advocate.
You're barking up the wrong tree now. I don't advocate for things thinking me or mine will never be on the recieving end.
If I'm calling for murderers to be plugged in the skull with a .22, then you'd best believe that if I ever cross that line, I fully expect the last thing I feel to be cold metal on the base of my skull.
@famousone- a couple things. Firstly- I wasn’t barking up your tree. I very carefully avoided using shooting as an example because I didn’t want you to think that was directed at you. While I don’t advocate it- the “electric couch” or “bullet behind the ear in back of the shed” method isn’t unnecessary suffering like torture etc for the sake of Sadism, it’s a moral argument about the practicality of removing undesirable citizens permanently vs. other means. So no offense meant to you and no direct reference to you there.
The second point I want to address on that reply is this- I STRONGLY doubt the world would be a better place without you in it. I also STRONGLY doubt you’ve reached your full potential yet. Based on what I know of you- I believe it is very likely that you still have an enormous amount to contribute to society in the future, and have not yet “peaked” in life at the pinnacle of what you will accomplish. So your second statement about you having no problem if they do that to you? I have a problem with it. Almost no one intends to end up in that place. My friend that killed his girlfriend had every reason to think that was likely and he still was shocked when he went to court on a manslaughter charge. Shit happens. A marine I knew- Latino guy- out legally enjoying a park in a rural place known for racism. State trooper starts harassing him. He stays cool. Cooperative. Trooper goes to pull his gun...
.. marine beats the shit out the trooper. Trooper goes to the hospital, marine goes to jail. Trooper had several disciplinary actions for racial bigotry and unnecessary force. Didn’t matter. But at least luckily- the marine didn’t kill the trooper, which is much easier than people think with a pitch of luck (good or bad depends...)
But see what I’m saying? Of that trooper had died- which one punch to the head can do- that case is “Cold blooded cop killer...” and in the .22 justice world that’s one more guard watching heaven. It’s not just the person we kill that gets hurt- it’s everyone. That guy became a teacher and a mentor who changed the lives of many kids. He became a father and opened an independent business. But swift and brutal justice doesn’t account for any of that stuff. In that system a cop killer is a cop killer. But that didn’t happen thankfully and we know what happened when he got out of prison- he became a pillar of community.
Now to your previous comment @famousone- a system where the law exists simply as the whim of those in power we are living in a totalitarian or fascistor dystopian or etc. county. The law will inevitably serve those in power because it is ultimately made and administered by them, and the law serves stability and commerce- power thrives on both so whatever helps those things generally helps people in power.
But that doesn’t mean the PURPOSE of the law is to serve their whims. In our system the fact it does is a product of corruption of the system and not how the system is designed or intended to function. The purpose of law in a free democracy is to serve the people. The opposite mentality is dangerous. That’s how you get a Junta.
The police and military are true power. Most power at its most basic level comes from force or threat of force. An army of the best lawyers and lawmakers armed with the finest luxury sedans and pens doesn’t fare well in a battle with a modern military force in the field. The UN is a prime example of “toothless” law- they lack any instrument but coercion to enforce their will and so it is at the discretion of each nation to follow or not.
Law makers in the US are impotent without the systems of force that put “teeth” behind their decrees. The police and military serve the people, to serve the people they carry out law and law- serves the people. Hence why a soldier is obligated to refuse an unethical order- because where the rule of law or interpretation of law conflicts the good of the people, or where an order conflicts the law and thus conflicts the good of the people- that order cannot he carries out by a servant of the people.
That is why the CIC and highest military authority rests in civilian hands, why war requires an act of Congress- the representatives of the people, it is why the military is not used for civil law enforcement unless absolutely necessary. These separations and distinctions are VITAL to a free and democratic society. Otherwise you end up with a military state. The military is a tremendous boon to protecting freedom but the military ethos is not one of freedom. It is one of rules and duty. One of practicality over philosophy.
That is why it’s also crucial in a free democracy that service be a choice and not a compulsion. One must CHOOSE to give up the freedoms and rights required for service. One must CHOOSE to be bound by the UCJ instead of their civilian legal rights. One must choose to be subject to tribunal and be told what to eat and when and where, how to dress and when, when to wake up and sleep, where to live and how to speak and etc. etc.
So the assertion that the law would derive from and ultimately exist to serve the will of those in power is terrifying and unacceptable. It’s the basis by which military junta or dictatorship is formed. It’s an easy slide to martial law as a state of normalcy. The law must always serve the people in America. The government must always serve the people. The military and police must always serve the people. Not law, not justice, not self interest and not even security. The people. Their wills and needs in balance. Society and a free democracy. The maximum freedom to the maximum number of people. That’s basic civics.
There's no easy answer to these questions, but I'm sure we're in accordance concerning the dickless miscreants who attack defenseless masses.
Their definitely needs to be nuance, but how I see it:
If I get harrassed Rambo style and end up doing something the jury wrongly decides is multiple counts of premeditated homicide, that's a bit of a mess, but at least I'm on my way to the battlefield in the beyond instead of rotting for the sixty years it takes to aquit a life sentence, only to have the stigma haunt my every action if and when I'm released. Might even be enough to convince me that doing something indisputably bad is a good and rational idea.
On the flipside, if I really do go off the deep end, take my service rifle to the middle school or set a fertilizer bomb, then the only right answer is one that can't be taken back.
I'm wasn't talking about US law in particular, but laws in general. The United States and the western democracies and republics we draw from and inspire are anomalies in human history. Forgetting that no system or earthly authority is inherently righteous would be a major step to losing what we've built.
Half the stuff you advocate for is a betrayal of our founding ideals, so lets not forget that. Do you also consider Putin and Kim to be friend material like your leader says?
@famousone- the key in it all- and the real tough spot- is in drawing clear lines of what is and isn’t “redeemable,” and a standard of proof that supports what we do next. A kid walking into a school is fairly clear cut. There’s still a possibility for mistaken identity or other issues- though they increase in absurdity as we go most are still possible if not likely. You’re right though- it’s complex and nuanced and our justice system is already unequipped to get that minute. The problem is that even if we could rigidly codify every possible act and offense and circumstance into some sort of usable database that calculated some formula of moral outrage and severity against harm and potential and statistical likelihood of rehabilitation and all that- then our hands are tied. It doesn’t matter the motives or outcomes or minutia of the crime if you do just a single thing that checks the wrong box that is an automatic fail regardless.
There’s no room for discretion there because then there’s no justification for all that if we are just going to wing it case by case anyway. It’s complicated for sure. But we’ve tried draconian punishment and revolving door death penalties in the past and they just didn’t seem to work out. We’ve not tried a “gentler” system aimed at understanding and outreach and maybe that doesn’t work either- but if we give it an honest try it either works or it doesn’t and we can use that experience to figure out what we should try next.
But I do agree that there are some criminals who just ant be put back in society. They are too dangerous or their deeds too heinous. Past the protection of society is the fact that these people might be in danger no matter what on the street- we see it all the time. Things like people accused of abuse or rape or pedophilia but not convicted, but in the public’s mind they were guilty as soon as they were accused- and no court verdict will convince some people they are innocent. The justice system has to protect victims- and that includes those who would become victims of the justice system wether through their own actions or otherwise. Without that principal we may as well just resort to neighborhood vigilantes enforcing their own laws on “their” streets as it’s not really better or worse than a justice system that isn’t designed to protect all people’s rights and to try to make the best of bad situations instead of allow us to use them to exercise the worst of our human impulses.
That whole «a gun solves everything»-thinking you seem to be doing is such a stereotypical stupid american way of thinking (as europeeans see it). It’s so destructive, and is an «easy way out» that is viewed to only come from non-intellectual people who can’t see longer than their own asses
Makes sense, I suppose that seeing past your own asses is how Norway became a global hyperpower whose military, economy, and culture set global trends and preserved the western world the last century.
Wherever would the United States be without our European overlords to tell us how things should be done?
Oops, I forgot that patriotic americans think they are the best and have the best solutions to everything just because they are a large country with power. American culture, lol.
What what?
'
Jail isn't about rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is about rehabilitation. That's why it's called Rehabilitation. People get rehabilitated. It's in the name. If you look closely you'll notice that prison is not, in fact, called Rehabilitation. It's about (wait for it) imprisonment.
'
As far as I know the historical side of prison was never about rehabing. It's literally time out for grown ups, except in the olden days instead of being let out eventually to go play, you usually were only brought out to be tortured or killed a little bit. Even if you fast forward, one of the first major prison systems is listed as being a way of punishing people without the death penalty.
'
So, no, prison is not about rehabilitation. And this is important because some people CANNOT be rehabilitated. Can't be done. Their brains aren't screwed on straight for whatever reason, and there's no amount of talk or behavioural therapy that will get through
That said, a lot of prisons do offer rehabilitation in varying forms and degrees. Some is optional, some is not, some is only available once you are released.
'
Whether it's more effective to rehabilitate from the start or punish in a way that's:
a) Hopefully severe enough to deter future criminal behaviour, and
b) Reasonable enough to appease any potential victims..... is an entirely different matter.
'
But citing that prisons are intended as a rehab and that they're somehow being mismanaged for NOT acting in that manner in their totality is inaccurate at best
Maybe-but also maybe history is wrong. It used to be common practice to lock people up and use treatments that modern medicine understands to be completely useless and also really inhumane when someone was suffering from a severe enough mental health problem. Not even someone who had done anything wrong-just was crazy. And we as a society agreed to stop doing that because it is wrong.
Just because prison wasn't intended to be rehabilitation doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
And a selling point private prisons often try to use is that they have rehabilitation programs-and those programs are often designed to fail because more prisoners is a private prisons whole business model--so well the reasons behind the anger at prisons not rehabilitating people may be a little off, I think the justification is still easily there.
Actually, in the US, the "idea" was that rehabilitation was possible for most people and became the original goal of most jails. Everyone agrees some people just cannot be rehabilitated, and this is what caused the rise of maximum security prisons. What this ALSO spawned was that the max security prisons didn't have enough prisoners to justify their existence instead of just executing those who had no real chance at rehabilitation (mass/sadistic murderers and rapists and such)... so they stuffed them with people that actually shouldn't be there and used stupid laws like the 3 strike policy. You really can't pin an overdose on the drug dealer unless they laced the product; as the customer clearly has a say. What's really funny is that a drug dealer is doing it out of financial sense. Usually they can totally be rehabilitated: give them a job at Nike.
A step further... the kid that was murdered in south-sid Chicago for his J's.. is that any different from someone being murdered because
Michel Foucault boils down the history of the penal system in the book "Discipline and Punish." In it, he shows that that prisons have had two essential functions: one, to show the criminal that what they did was an egregious breach of societies rules and regulations; and two, to experiment new ways to punish the population as a whole. The penal system shows the states power and its ability to punish the people when and how it sees fit.
I didn't read all the thread above this one, but noticed I got tagged in it, so I'll try and address that (doing it here for context)
'
I'm not entirely certain where the history was misguided, or what that even entails. History is what it is. Whether we agree or disagree with the methodology of the past or not, does not change the facts, and that's all I was addressing.
'
That said, I think I should probably have made it clearer that I wasn't specifically talking about modern penitentiary systems as we know them, or ones exclusive to America. I was largely talking about imprisonment as as whole.
'
Throughout history it's main purpose has been to keep a person in a specific place. The end goal being to protect other people from this person, stop them from evading torture/death, or as the punishment itself.
'
And, given the kinds of torture/death people were subjected to, it was highly unlikely any sane person would stick around to meet the fate they were condemned to.
In regards to rehab vs deterrence vs punishment, I feel like this is too complicated an issue to properly lay out, especially since it is almost always a case by case issue.
'
I've personally experienced someone being offered the whole meal deal - reduced sentence, lots of support, access to drug withdrawal rehab, access to counselors, a transfer from a full-fledged prison to a "healing lodge," etc etc etc. To them this was a free ride. They came out the exact same person they'd been when they went in, and began engaging in the exact same behaviours as before.
'
And then there are people who, as people have said, have the hammer brought down on their heads for the minorest (<- making up words here) of infractions. They don't get the help they need, so if they ever establish a different lifestyle it's almost entirely based on their own merit
And there's also the garden variety average person who wouldn't see "rehab" as much of a reason not to go out punching people in the face - but the idea of losing their freedom? Of four grey walls, almost no sunlight, no privacy, etc? It's usually enough to keep at least some people on the straight and narrow
'
I think all three (deterrence, punishment, rehab) have their place in society. It largely is about figuring out when and where they apply
I would presume this is for petty criminals, but I gotta say that isolation and being in one place forever is still going to drive someone mental. I actually made a presentation for school about prison standards and how some prisons let the prisoners get nice cereal or they can buy like ps4's and shit for their cell. It's wild. Absolutely mental.
And moreover 2. You are trying to strawman this agrugement. A vast majority of people in American jails are not guilty of murder let alone child murder and murder by fire. Most criminals are people who got themselves into bad places and couldn't easily get themselves out. Our jails are full of people who turned to stealing or selling drugs, or who just had issues using drugs. Seriously, over 45% of inmates are incarcerated on drug related charges. And nearly 19% of inmates have charges involving weapons, these are not charges related to killing people. Homicide, Aggravated assault, and Kidnapping combined only make up 3.3% of inmates.
Source: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
Xvarnah did a better job below me explaining it
Either way- that's not a majority of prisoners- and advocating policy for many based on the needs of few is irresponsible at best.
If I'm calling for murderers to be plugged in the skull with a .22, then you'd best believe that if I ever cross that line, I fully expect the last thing I feel to be cold metal on the base of my skull.
Their definitely needs to be nuance, but how I see it:
If I get harrassed Rambo style and end up doing something the jury wrongly decides is multiple counts of premeditated homicide, that's a bit of a mess, but at least I'm on my way to the battlefield in the beyond instead of rotting for the sixty years it takes to aquit a life sentence, only to have the stigma haunt my every action if and when I'm released. Might even be enough to convince me that doing something indisputably bad is a good and rational idea.
On the flipside, if I really do go off the deep end, take my service rifle to the middle school or set a fertilizer bomb, then the only right answer is one that can't be taken back.
Wherever would the United States be without our European overlords to tell us how things should be done?
"HOW GOES THE REHABILITATION?"
I know not your reference.... just... >_> <_< it reminded me.
'
Jail isn't about rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is about rehabilitation. That's why it's called Rehabilitation. People get rehabilitated. It's in the name. If you look closely you'll notice that prison is not, in fact, called Rehabilitation. It's about (wait for it) imprisonment.
'
As far as I know the historical side of prison was never about rehabing. It's literally time out for grown ups, except in the olden days instead of being let out eventually to go play, you usually were only brought out to be tortured or killed a little bit. Even if you fast forward, one of the first major prison systems is listed as being a way of punishing people without the death penalty.
'
So, no, prison is not about rehabilitation. And this is important because some people CANNOT be rehabilitated. Can't be done. Their brains aren't screwed on straight for whatever reason, and there's no amount of talk or behavioural therapy that will get through
'
Whether it's more effective to rehabilitate from the start or punish in a way that's:
a) Hopefully severe enough to deter future criminal behaviour, and
b) Reasonable enough to appease any potential victims..... is an entirely different matter.
'
But citing that prisons are intended as a rehab and that they're somehow being mismanaged for NOT acting in that manner in their totality is inaccurate at best
Just because prison wasn't intended to be rehabilitation doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
And a selling point private prisons often try to use is that they have rehabilitation programs-and those programs are often designed to fail because more prisoners is a private prisons whole business model--so well the reasons behind the anger at prisons not rehabilitating people may be a little off, I think the justification is still easily there.
A step further... the kid that was murdered in south-sid Chicago for his J's.. is that any different from someone being murdered because
'
I'm not entirely certain where the history was misguided, or what that even entails. History is what it is. Whether we agree or disagree with the methodology of the past or not, does not change the facts, and that's all I was addressing.
'
That said, I think I should probably have made it clearer that I wasn't specifically talking about modern penitentiary systems as we know them, or ones exclusive to America. I was largely talking about imprisonment as as whole.
'
Throughout history it's main purpose has been to keep a person in a specific place. The end goal being to protect other people from this person, stop them from evading torture/death, or as the punishment itself.
'
And, given the kinds of torture/death people were subjected to, it was highly unlikely any sane person would stick around to meet the fate they were condemned to.
'
I've personally experienced someone being offered the whole meal deal - reduced sentence, lots of support, access to drug withdrawal rehab, access to counselors, a transfer from a full-fledged prison to a "healing lodge," etc etc etc. To them this was a free ride. They came out the exact same person they'd been when they went in, and began engaging in the exact same behaviours as before.
'
And then there are people who, as people have said, have the hammer brought down on their heads for the minorest (<- making up words here) of infractions. They don't get the help they need, so if they ever establish a different lifestyle it's almost entirely based on their own merit
'
I think all three (deterrence, punishment, rehab) have their place in society. It largely is about figuring out when and where they apply
Nope.