Does Society Need Prisons?

[Belinda]

Was it ever conquered? I mean, ever in human history? Will it ever be conquered?
Still, if a problem is not able to be completely conquered, is that a reason to think that efforts at amelioration are pointless?

Nope (though the poverty stricken in antiquity might disagree). My point was that in the absence of solving poverty (the driver of crime) crime was seriously curtailed through Roe v Wade.

Was it ever conquered? I mean, ever in human history? Will it ever be conquered?
Still, if a problem is not able to be completely conquered, is that a reason to think that efforts at amelioration are pointless?

Nope (though the poverty stricken in antiquity might disagree). My point was that in the absence of solving poverty (the driver of crime) crime was seriously curtailed through Roe v Wade.

When you say "poverty" do you mean people desperate for essentials like food and shelter, or do you mean the income gap between poor and rich that makes people so discontented with society that they choose to join a criminal underclass?
Abortion on demand is a phrase that would make anti-abortionists angry. What media exist that would be effective in promoting conception control and abortion? Perhaps school teachers may be allowed by education authorities to teach parenting that includes conception control and abortion. Do young voters generally support abortion and conception control? I guess that women who have known the reality of unwanted babies would support easy access to abortion and conception control.
Finally I wonder if the uneducated religious right are responsible for unwanted births. Why does the education system fail so badly to teach post-enlightenment values?

[Pattern-chaser]

Prisons are necessary, and will continue to be so while there are those from whom the innocent majority deserve protection. The causes of crime are, as LuckyR says, a different kettle of fish. To reduce/minimise those causes has to be good for all, especially as imprisonment doesn't rehabilitate criminals, or reduce re-offending. I think it's fair to say, from the point of view of criminals, their victims, and everyone else, that prison should be a last resort. But that doesn't mean we should shy away from using it when the rest of us need protection from someone.

[LuckyR]

Was it ever conquered? I mean, ever in human history? Will it ever be conquered?
Still, if a problem is not able to be completely conquered, is that a reason to think that efforts at amelioration are pointless?

Nope (though the poverty stricken in antiquity might disagree). My point was that in the absence of solving poverty (the driver of crime) crime was seriously curtailed through Roe v Wade.

When you say "poverty" do you mean people desperate for essentials like food and shelter, or do you mean the income gap between poor and rich that makes people so discontented with society that they choose to join a criminal underclass?
Abortion on demand is a phrase that would make anti-abortionists angry. What media exist that would be effective in promoting conception control and abortion? Perhaps school teachers may be allowed by education authorities to teach parenting that includes conception control and abortion. Do young voters generally support abortion and conception control? I guess that women who have known the reality of unwanted babies would support easy access to abortion and conception control.
Finally I wonder if the uneducated religious right are responsible for unwanted births. Why does the education system fail so badly to teach post-enlightenment values?

I alluded to the first definition in my referral to the historical poor, but I agree that the second is more germaine to the topic at hand. Of course as a statistical definition, it cannot be eliminated since someone is always going to occupy that portion of the curve.

Yes, the young (who are vulnerable to pregnancy) support abortion rights, but don't vote much.

The uneducated of all stripes contribute to unwanted pregnancies.

[LuckyR]

Prisons are necessary, and will continue to be so while there are those from whom the innocent majority deserve protection. The causes of crime are, as LuckyR says, a different kettle of fish. To reduce/minimise those causes has to be good for all, especially as imprisonment doesn't rehabilitate criminals, or reduce re-offending. I think it's fair to say, from the point of view of criminals, their victims, and everyone else, that prison should be a last resort. But that doesn't mean we should shy away from using it when the rest of us need protection from someone.

Much has been attempted to be made in this Forum that since only a minority of criminals are violent that we don't need prisons. This opinion ignores the reality that even if there's only one violent criminal, there would be a need for either a prison or a firing squad. Also there is little to no discussion on the alternative to prisons for those convicted of property crimes. The insinuation is that nonviolent crimes are all vice crimes that ought to be decriminalized, which ignores the huge numbers of property crimes.

[Lagayscienza]

Of course we need prisons. Some people, even if they are non-violent, can be sociopaths or psychopths for whom punishment for property crimes, and efforts at rehabilitation, seem to have no effect - they will continue to commit crimes against property. Society must bear the burden of locking them up.

Others offenders who commit crimes against property do so out of poverty and desperation. These are not sociopaths or psychopaths and efforts to rehabilitate them may have some sucess if they can be reintegrated into society. For such people a prison sentence after a first offence may not be the best option. Indeed, a prison term may make recidivism more likely.

The difficulty is identifying which offenders belongs in which group. However, I don't think there can be any question of decriminalising theft, fraud, robbery and other crimes against property.

The best we can do is improve the socio-economic conditions that lead to the second group committing crimes againt property - society should not alow people to become so poor and desperate that they need to resort to theft. For example, an unmarried woman with three kids and little education and no employment prospects who lives on food stamps and shoplifting would benefit from eduction, information about contraception, the ability to access abortion, subsidized childcare, etc. It would be cheaper for society to provide these than to put her in prison where she could no longer care for her kids. Punishment by imprisonment is not going to help her, her kids, or society.

[Pattern-chaser]

Prisons are necessary, and will continue to be so while there are those from whom the innocent majority deserve protection. The causes of crime are, as LuckyR says, a different kettle of fish. To reduce/minimise those causes has to be good for all, especially as imprisonment doesn't rehabilitate criminals, or reduce re-offending. I think it's fair to say, from the point of view of criminals, their victims, and everyone else, that prison should be a last resort. But that doesn't mean we should shy away from using it when the rest of us need protection from someone.

Much has been attempted to be made in this Forum that since only a minority of criminals are violent that we don't need prisons. This opinion ignores the reality that even if there's only one violent criminal, there would be a need for either a prison or a firing squad. Also there is little to no discussion on the alternative to prisons for those convicted of property crimes. The insinuation is that nonviolent crimes are all vice crimes that ought to be decriminalized, which ignores the huge numbers of property crimes.

Oh, no. We need prisons, as I said clearly (I thought). My opinion is more like, let the punishment fit the crime, and prison is not the useful sentence for many criminals. "Useful" to all —criminals, victims, and everyone else. Those who threaten the wider population must be contained.

But thieves (for example) don't need to be imprisoned straight away, although repeat offenders might well find themselves incarcerated, and deservedly so. For other criminals, other punishments give better results... Prison is not the ultimate sanction, and the death sentence is just plain barbarism, IMO. We should use what *works best*.

... So yes, let's discuss "the alternative to prisons for those convicted of property crimes", and the like. Don't Scandinavian countries do this more successfully than most?

[Belinda]

We either take them off the streets by putting them to death, or we put them in prison. Imprisonment is so cruel that it may be merciful to put them to death.
When prison is the only option the best society will ensure that prisons are as comfortable as possible.

[Hilda Murithi]

I agree with some of the views discussed earlier. Yes, to keep out the bad apples in the society and keep the rest of the people safe. I just pity innocent people who sometimes find themselves in there as well.

[Belinda]

I agree with some of the views discussed earlier. Yes, to keep out the bad apples in the society and keep the rest of the people safe. I just pity innocent people who sometimes find themselves in there as well.

Yet another reason for prison reform.

[LuckyR]

I agree with some of the views discussed earlier. Yes, to keep out the bad apples in the society and keep the rest of the people safe. I just pity innocent people who sometimes find themselves in there as well.

Yet another reason for prison reform.

But primarily it's another reason to abolish the death penalty.

[Belinda]

I agree with some of the views discussed earlier. Yes, to keep out the bad apples in the society and keep the rest of the people safe. I just pity innocent people who sometimes find themselves in there as well.

Yet another reason for prison reform.

But primarily it's another reason to abolish the death penalty.

Yes, that too.

[Eagle Adastra]

Yes, society needs prison. It is known as a correctional facility here. It is essential for all society.