Scott wrote: ↑
February 22nd, 2021, 4:57 pm
In the way I use the words, a marijuana smoker who gets put in prison for possessing small amounts of marijuana, and who is not innocent
of the charged crime (i.e. illegal act), is thus a "real criminal".
As another example in the way I use the words "real" and "criminal", Martin Luther King Jr. was a real criminal.
Accordingly. if you mean to talk only about the fraction of criminals that also happen to be victimizers, I request that for my sake--at least in communications with me--you specifically use a phrase like "criminal victimizers".
"Crime," in common usage, has a broader application than mere legal infractions.
1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
especially : a gross violation of law
2: a grave offense especially against morality
But, ok, "victimizers" it is.
Even most "criminal victimizers" are presumably not technically violent, so if you want to talk specifically about the fraction of criminals who happen to also be violent victimizers, please do further specify that by saying something like "criminal violent victimizers" or such, simply so I know you are talking about that fraction of criminals and not talking about the majority of criminals since you consider the majority of incarcerated criminals to be unreal criminals even though the reality of their imprisonment is real.
That is not true. While a substantial fraction of prison inmates --- mainly drug offenders --- are not victimizers, they are not the majority. Although they make up about 47% of federal prison inmates, they are only about 15% of state prison inmates --- and that's where most inmates are incarcerated. There are other categories of non-victimizers in prison, of course, but they make up a very small fraction of the inmate population.
BTW, I draw no moral distinction between violent and non-violent criminals. Any intentional and unjustified act which inflicts a loss or injury on another moral agent is a crime, whether committed by force, fraud, or stealth.
I could be mistaken, but unfortunately it seems the stats to which you linked involve what you might call "fake criminals". To be applicable, I think you would need to provide statistics regarding only the much smaller subset of violent victimizers that you mean to talk about.
Those are available. Indeed, some are given in the link I gave you:
"Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders."
The rehabilitation or mental health treatment provided to a violent schizophrenic would of course be very different than the so-called "mental health treatment" or "rehabilitation" provided to (or forced upon) a peaceful pot smoker or on some peaceful gay kid being forced into conversion therapy.
I agree. About the only thing they have in common is that they don't work for most patients/inmates.
Indeed, if the person is a pacifist and is being violently forced into a cage and given so-called "rehabilitation" or "mental health treatment", then I assume we can agree the titles "rehabilitation" or "mental health treatment" would be misnomers--even though I do not doubt a violent government would label its caging of peaceful people as "rehabilitation" or such and its non-consensual brainwashing of peaceful people as "mental health treatment". I think we can agree that the statistics regarding the success of such non-defensively violent programs are not relevant to this discussion.
Agree. But the success rate for "legitimate" rehabilitation and treatment schemes is not much better:
"Traditionally, criminologists such as Martinson would read over a group of studies evaluating treatment programs. They would then either describe what the studies found—a narrative review—or try to count how many studies showed that offender treatment worked or did not work—the "ballot box" method. A meta-analysis, however, essentially computes a batting average across all studies, calculating the average impact of treatment on recidivism. Using this method, the existing research, which now involves hundreds of evaluation studies, shows that rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism about 10 percentage points. Thus, if a control group had a recidivism rate of 55 percent, the treatment group's rate of re-offending would be 45 percent . . .
"A group of Canadian psychologists interested in crime—Don Andrews, James Bonta, and Paul Gendreau being its most prominent members—have taken the analysis of effective rehabilitation one step farther . . . Based on meta-analyses of treatment studies, they found that in rehabilitation programs that conformed to the principles of effective intervention
, recidivism was about 25 percentage points lower in the treatment as opposed to the control group . . ."
https://law.jrank.org/pages/1936/Rehabi ... -work.html
The majority of released inmates re-offend, even those who participated in rehabilitation programs considered the best-designed. Most programs do not conform to those principles.
The question of why we have one is very different than why we might want one. The former question addresses primarily the motivation of the violent person(s) (i.e. the imprisoners) as well as the reason for that violent person's success (i.e. the fact that prisons do currently exist) in implementing their goals (e.g. to make profit) which in modern politics is arguably perhaps best summed by the words violent plutocracy. The second question is more pipe-dream-oriented, and thus more philosophical, which in turn runs the risk of becoming prescriptive where the first question is inherently a matter of the descriptive.
You seem to be buying into the leftist myth that persons are incarcerated so that (private) prison operators can make a profit. Is that your contention? That is nonsense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... story.html
For example, as Frederick Douglass escaped slavery, it would be a very different question for him to wonder why slavery did exist at that time, than if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality that is presumably a more utopian version of the society that actually existed at the time.
The two different questions may seem to converge together to the degree one assumes the violent rulers of society are benevolent (e.g. that one is living under a benevolent dictator) and/or that society is already as utopian as practically possible, but I believe we can all easily agree such assumptions are very mistaken.
I fail to see how that answers the question, "Why do we have a criminal justice system? What is its purpose?"