The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

Does Society Need Prisons?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
GE Morton
Posts: 508
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton » January 25th, 2019, 1:26 pm

Belindi wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 8:00 am

I agree that there are many myths that uphold American society. The myth of America is well expressed in the emotive words of Star Spangled Banner. Another very important myth that upholds American society ( not only American society!)is money which is the myth which upholds the practice of trade. There is also the old Christian myth which we are informed is strongly adhered to by many people in America and, in America especially , is allied to the myth of money.
Well, I'm not sure any of those myths "uphold" society, in the sense that the society would dissolve without them. Humans remain in social settings for quite pragmatic reasons, which are pretty constant regardless of the myths embraced by various groups of members.

Nor am I sure what you mean by the "myth" of money. I understand a "myth" to be a persisting set of beliefs not supported by evidence. What beliefs about money do you think are unsupported by evidence?

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1928
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Belindi » January 25th, 2019, 2:42 pm

GE Morton wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 1:26 pm
Belindi wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 8:00 am

I agree that there are many myths that uphold American society. The myth of America is well expressed in the emotive words of Star Spangled Banner. Another very important myth that upholds American society ( not only American society!)is money which is the myth which upholds the practice of trade. There is also the old Christian myth which we are informed is strongly adhered to by many people in America and, in America especially , is allied to the myth of money.
Well, I'm not sure any of those myths "uphold" society, in the sense that the society would dissolve without them. Humans remain in social settings for quite pragmatic reasons, which are pretty constant regardless of the myths embraced by various groups of members.

Nor am I sure what you mean by the "myth" of money. I understand a "myth" to be a persisting set of beliefs not supported by evidence. What beliefs about money do you think are unsupported by evidence?
A piece of printed paper or plastic is worth goods is an insupportable belief unless everybody believes the fiction that it's worth something.

GE Morton
Posts: 508
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton » January 25th, 2019, 4:38 pm

Belindi wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 2:42 pm

A piece of printed paper or plastic is worth goods is an insupportable belief unless everybody believes the fiction that it's worth something.
That belief is not a fiction if the evidence supports it. And there is ample evidence that, say, a $5 bill is worth a burger and fries --- you can exchange it for those goods at any MacDonald's, or anyplace else that serves those items.

You seem to think that because currency has no intrinsic utility, the belief that it has value is a fiction. But it isn't. Things can have value for more than one reason. While currency has no intrinsic value, it can have exchange value, and the evidence that it has that value is unquestionable.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1928
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Belindi » January 26th, 2019, 6:03 am

GE Morton wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 4:38 pm
Belindi wrote:
January 25th, 2019, 2:42 pm

A piece of printed paper or plastic is worth goods is an insupportable belief unless everybody believes the fiction that it's worth something.
That belief is not a fiction if the evidence supports it. And there is ample evidence that, say, a $5 bill is worth a burger and fries --- you can exchange it for those goods at any MacDonald's, or anyplace else that serves those items.

You seem to think that because currency has no intrinsic utility, the belief that it has value is a fiction. But it isn't. Things can have value for more than one reason. While currency has no intrinsic value, it can have exchange value, and the evidence that it has that value is unquestionable.

I use 'fiction' to mean , not a story that isn't true, but 'fiction' as in a story that communicates cultural values.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 248
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by h_k_s » January 28th, 2019, 11:55 pm

UchihaSasuke wrote:
January 14th, 2019, 5:53 am
Scott wrote:
February 28th, 2008, 4:09 am
[The following topic is featured as a leadup to the May philosophy book of the month discussion of Holding Fire.]

Does Society Need Prisons?
by Scott Hughes

Millions of people in the world currently rot in jails or prisons. People think of jails and prisons as an essential part of society, but do we really need them? Do prisons really protect people from violence and victimization, or do prisons just make matters worse? Let's look at the different types of criminals that governments throw in prison.

Non-violent non-victimizers - Governments have a tendency to criminalize behaviors that do not hurt anyone. The governments create victimless crimes by creating authoritarian laws. When people break these laws, they have not hurt anyone in any major way. These laws can include any laws outlawing victimless behaviors, such as drug possession, prostitution, peacefully practicing a religion, and so on and so forth. For example, the United States currently has over 1 million people behind bars for victimless crimes, which only limits freedom and does not protect others. Instead of putting these non-violent people in jail or prison, we can just let them go and legalize all victimless behaviors. It makes more sense to let people have freedom than to waste resources enforcing authoritarian laws.

Incidental Criminals – Some people may commit an illegal act of violence or victimization due to external conditions. We can refer to these people as incidental criminals. These 'incidental criminals' do not have any more of a tendency to hurt others than the average person. For example, consider someone who has to steal to feed his family one day. Almost anyone would do that, so it does not mean we need to throw the person in jail or prison. If we can change the conditions that cause a normal person to commit a crime, then we can do that rather than brutally lock a person in a cell. We have no need to throw a person in jail or prison if they pose no more danger than the average person but committed a one-time crime due to external circumstances.

Mentally Sick People - Finally, we have sick people. These people have some sort of mental defect that makes them a danger to other people. If we do not restrain these people, they will victimize other people. So we must restrain them. But why put them in jail or prison? They need treatment, and prison will not cure them; it will just torture them. If we put them in jail or prison, then we can never let them out because jail or prison will not cure them. If we put them into a treatment facility, then we may successfully treat or cure some of them, at which point we can safely release those ones back into society. We will protect more people by putting mentally sick people into treatment centers (including insane asylums), then by throwing them in jail or prison. These people need professional care in a medical establishment, not the punishment of prison.

I think most people feel like me in that I would prefer to protect people and to do it in as least brutal a way as possible. I have no interest in using the force of government to pointlessly get vengeance or inflict punishment using prisons. Thus, I see no need for prisons. We can release people who have no psychological defect that makes them dangerous, and we can put the ones with psychological defects in treatment. Let's base our policies on sympathy, understanding, and a desire to protect people. Let's not base policy on a wasteful indulgence in state-sanctioned vengeance.

About the author: Scott Hughes manages the Philosophy Forums, which contain a Philosophy of Politics Forum. You can use the forums to discuss topics such as this and more.

What do you think? Do you think society needs prisons? Why or why not?

1. What do you suggest for the criminals who do not belong to any of the categories discussed?
e.g. Hidan is a sane man who kills people regularly for sacrifices to the Lord Jashin of the Jashin religion he follows.


He definitely is not a non-violent non-victimizer type.
He can't be an incidental criminal because his crimes are not infrequent and are not instigated by any external factors but his own religious beliefs.
He doesn't have any kind of psychiatric disorder or psychological problem that modifies his behaviour. He just has a perspective that is radically different from the common people in the most fundamental aspects. The difference in views is no mental defect.
And even if he is put in a compassionate treatment facility, then what would be the purpose of the treatment he gets? Would it be to change his religious beliefs or something?


2. We are well aware that human acts are often driven by motivation. An integral factor of motivation is fear. Mostly, crimes are temptations that people fall into. Be it a temptation to reach earlier by overspeeding, a temptation to earn quick money by scamming etc. But still most of the people are not criminals, i.e., they do not fall into the temptations being driven by a fear of prison. If there are no prisons, it ends the fear of consequences from minds. Plus, if committing a crime means going to a place where one will be treated with compassion and professional care, it could even have the reverse motivational effects as not many people have the things that you could get in a medical facility.
Scot asks some very thought provoking questions at times and this one although simplistic (perhaps for the benefit of our simplistic minds) is one. So with that in mind let's go ahead and resurrect this thread then.

Anytime you have 3 or more people together you are going to need government and politics.

And where there is government and politics there further needs to be laws.

Since any of the two individuals in our hypothetical example can overpower the third, their actions must be somehow restrained by a Constitution and a Code.

To enforce laws there needs to be justice and punishments.

What the punishments are depends on the choices that at least 2 of the 3 of them agree on.

A prison system is simply a manner of confinement. The confinement becomes the punishment.

So to cut to the chase, as British fox hunters would say, your punishment system can be whatever you agree on, whether prisons or some other form of punishment.

A cage system for these 3 isolated people with deprivation to the extent it can be borne sounds fair to me.

Banishment is the ultimate punishment. That is what the ancient Greeks and the pre-modern British used to use. That works too.

User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Contributor
Posts: 1777
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by whitetrshsoldier » March 15th, 2019, 5:16 pm

Certainly violent offenders must be restrained. I can agree to no jail time for incidental crimes (petty theft for instance), and I can agree that the truly mentally ill should be treated instead of imprisoned. But there must be consequences for violence against others. Depriving another of one of their rights means we deprive you of yours. You sacrifice your right to liberty when you stifle the liberty of another.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"

Post Reply