Does Society Need Prisons?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Steve3007 »

BG, I think you will probably win our wager. Or, at best, I could hope for a draw.

viewtopic.php?p=285289#p285289

Based on the evidence of the above cited post, I think he'll dispute that what he's talking about is an "eye for an eye".

So, well played.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

Burning ghost wrote: September 27th, 2018, 4:42 am Morton -

Surely you cannot be saying there is no requirement for rehabilitation?
What I said was that citizens have no duty to pay for anyone's "rehabilitation." The convict may well be in need of rehabilitation, but if so, it is up to him to recognize that need, his responsibility to assess the effectiveness of the numerous approaches (most of which are minimally effective), to select a program, and to pay for it. The costs would be added to his restitution obligation.
If not you may as well execute everyone.
How does that follow?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

Burning ghost wrote: September 27th, 2018, 5:17 am I don’t think he is saying anything like “an eye for an eye”? Your quote shows that.

I question whether paying their debt to society is enough to teach them to behave in a more civil manner. In many it probably is, but not in all. And in the group that it isn’t enough I’d go as far to say that some are beyond rehabilitation.
The restitution model does not amount to "an eye for an eye." That is a version of the punishment model. The aim of the restitution model is to secure justice for the victim, by making him whole, to whatever extent is possible. No more pain or discomfort or restrictions of liberties are imposed upon the perpetrator than are necessary to accomplish that goal.

You're right that many inmates --- most, in fact --- are "beyond rehabilitation," at least, per any method now known. A rational justice system will also have an "habitual criminal" law which, after a certain number of convictions, imprisons the offender for life.

BTW, the restitution model does not require "paying one's debt to society." It requires paying one's debt to actual victims. Societies are not moral agents and no one can become indebted to them. "Paying one's debt to society" is a vacuous phrase that usually results in nothing being repaid to anyone.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Steve3007 »

I still say it sounds exactly like "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" - i.e. restricting compensation to the value of the loss. Restitution.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Burning ghost »

Morton -

If people cannot be rehabilitated then they will repeat offend over and over. So complete ostricisation would, I imagine, mean execution. This is in the realms of the modern prison system because if the attitude is that people have to rehabilitate themselves completely whilst surrounded by other criminals I don’t see how this is doing anything other than feeding the problem and preventing any basic chance of rehabilitation.

A bit lke the US baseball game system - three strikes and you’re out.

When I said “paying debt to society” I was referring to what you said in regards to criminals paying the justice system back and those they’ve offended. I consider victims to be part of society, so I don’t think it is “vacuous”, but I’m not wedded to the term.
AKA badgerjelly
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: September 25th, 2018, 1:30 pm
Belindi wrote: September 25th, 2018, 11:33 am
But it's impossible to allocate blame except within the context of tradition and precedent.
I'm sorry, Belindi, but you've lost me. Alfie enters a convenience store, points a .38 at the clerk, says, "Give me all the money in the till." The incident is recorded on the store's camera. What problems do you have in assigning blame? What have "tradition and precedent" to do with making that judgment?
There is no perfect scales of justice by which we may be sure that a man or woman is entirely to blame.
I'm not sure what would count as a "perfect scale of justice," but there is no room for doubt about who is to blame for the hypothetical robbery just described. No one but Alfie is making the demand, no one but Alfie is holding the gun or making the threat. Hence Alfie is, per the available evidence, which is conclusive, entirely to blame. Who else would you suggest is (partially?) to blame?
You, nor the best judge and jury, are not God and so you cannot possibly know how good or how bad a person is.
I'm not interested in how good or bad a person is (I don't even know what that means). I'm only interested in who committed the crime, and the evidence in this case is quite clear.
Better to be practical and look to the common aim to prevent crime by removing the causes of crime as best we may.
Crime does not have "causes." Nor does any other voluntary human behavior. Behaviors have motives --- objectives the agent hopes to attain by committing the act. Humans are not deterministic machines, driven to rote performance of pre-programmed actions by external forces over which they have no control.
It's not possible to compensate for injuries except when money or goods can be returned. Crimes against the person cannot be compensated for as the traumas are ineradicable.
Of course it is possible. It is done all the time in wrongful death and other tort lawsuits. Compensation is not always full, but whatever the victim or his survivors receive is better than nothing.
I wrote "except within the context of tradition and precedent". You are right as regards law but the question "does society need prisons?" must be answered with an eye to changing inefficient legal methods of crime prevention. Crime does indeed have causes, and voluntary behaviour is also caused. Crime is a social problem and all social problems however intractable they be have causes.

Indeed humans are not deterministic machines. The more a man is well informed and the more able he is to exercise his critical faculty the less he is controlled by passions and unthinking or immoral reactions.As you will be aware, not all men have equal opportunities to develop their intellects and moral sense.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: September 24th, 2018, 11:07 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote: September 24th, 2018, 4:09 pm

Point 2 is absurd, serving no purpose - it is the vengeance you have already described as "emotional"
Huh? Are you claiming that justice consists in, or is identical with, vengeance? Justice consists in securing to each person what he is due, by virtue of his actions. Securing justice for crime victims requires making good their losses and compensating for their injuries, as far as possible. Vengeance consists in inflicting comparable (or greater) loss or pain on the criminal --- which serves no rational purpose; it does nothing to repair the damages done.
Well, the main difference between justice and vengeance is that one is performed by a sanctioned arm of the state and the other is meted out by individuals without supervision/oversight.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by ThomasHobbes »

GE Morton wrote: September 26th, 2018, 7:55 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote: September 26th, 2018, 5:55 pm yes, and "that" is so risible you find it hard to bring yourself to defend it!
LOL
So far no defense is needed, since no attack has been made. Juvenile quips and ad hominems don't qualify.

Do you have some substantive criticism?
Absurd and laughable ideas are self critical.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

Steve3007 wrote: September 27th, 2018, 1:30 pm I still say it sounds exactly like "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" - i.e. restricting compensation to the value of the loss. Restitution.
We may be interpreting that old adage differently. I took it to mean that if someone knocks out your tooth, you may knock out one of his teeth. The restitution model would require your assailant to pay your dental bill for an implant, plus compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages,if any, etc.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

Burning ghost wrote: September 27th, 2018, 2:07 pm Morton -

If people cannot be rehabilitated then they will repeat offend over and over.
Yes. they will. And do. The 5-year recidivism rate for inmates released from state prisons in the US is 76%. Most of those have participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program.
So complete ostricisation would, I imagine, mean execution.
I still fail to see how you reach that conclusion. Habitual offenders would be imprisoned for life, but required to work to earn their keep (even after any restitution obligation has been satisfied). They could also opt to have their citizenship revoked and be deported, if any country would agree to take them.
This is in the realms of the modern prison system because if the attitude is that people have to rehabilitate themselves completely whilst surrounded by other criminals I don’t see how this is doing anything other than feeding the problem and preventing any basic chance of rehabilitation.
If the "rehabilitation" program is conducted in the prison they will be surrounded by other criminals no matter who is paying the bills. The "basic chance" of rehabilitation is small to begin with. It might prove to be greater if the inmate is paying the bill --- it would indicate that he accepts responsibility for himself and his choices and is willing to try something different.
When I said “paying debt to society” I was referring to what you said in regards to criminals paying the justice system back and those they’ve offended. I consider victims to be part of society, so I don’t think it is “vacuous”, but I’m not wedded to the term.
That phrase has become a dogma recited by convicts and their advocates: "I did my time; I've paid my debt to society." In fact, they've paid nothing to anyone. They didn't "owe society" anything; their debt was to the victims of their crimes.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

LuckyR wrote: September 27th, 2018, 4:06 pm
Well, the main difference between justice and vengeance is that one is performed by a sanctioned arm of the state and the other is meted out by individuals without supervision/oversight.
Well, you seem to have invented your own definitions of those two terms.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: September 27th, 2018, 2:11 pm
I wrote "except within the context of tradition and precedent". You are right as regards law but the question "does society need prisons?" must be answered with an eye to changing inefficient legal methods of crime prevention. Crime does indeed have causes, and voluntary behaviour is also caused. Crime is a social problem and all social problems however intractable they be have causes.
You may be equating correlation with causation. In any case, human behavior does not have causes in the sense of "cause" understood in the sciences. In physics and other sciences, for A to be a cause of B, B must always follow A, ceteris paribus. E.g., if a hydrogen and oxygen mixture is heated to a certain temperature the mixture will always ignite, forming water vapor. Raising the temperature of that mixture (by, say, tossing a lighted match into it) is the cause of the resulting fire.

For anything A to be considered a cause of B, it must be possible to predict B, given A, with a high degree of confidence.

There is no human behavior that reliably and predictably follows from any alleged "cause." For example, while being abused or neglected as a child, or being raised by a poor, single parent in a "bad" neighborhood, or attending a poor school, etc., may be correlated with criminal behavior, they cannot be causes of that behavior --- simply because thousands of other people with similar background factors do not become criminals.
Indeed humans are not deterministic machines. The more a man is well informed and the more able he is to exercise his critical faculty the less he is controlled by passions and unthinking or immoral reactions.As you will be aware, not all men have equal opportunities to develop their intellects and moral sense.
That last sentence is true. But many who had no greater opportunities do not become criminals. Hence that difference in opportunities cannot be the cause of the criminal behavior.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Burning ghost »

Morton -

It’s a tough question for sure. I have only looked into this isseu (prisons and rehabilitation) from an obscure angle. I am unsure what would be the best means of “rehabilitation” other than what you’ve already outlined. I’ve met a few people who’ve been in and out of prison before and they referred to them as being more like criminal training camps - some feel bad about what they did to others, but they are not ashamed. To them they were dealt a **** hand and did what they did to survive.

We cam but hope one day a better program can be put into place to help those that benefit from it and not those who won’t.
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Steve3007 »

GE Morton wrote:We may be interpreting that old adage differently. I took it to mean that if someone knocks out your tooth, you may knock out one of his teeth. The restitution model would require your assailant to pay your dental bill for an implant, plus compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages,if any, etc.
Yes, we do seem to be interpreting it differently, and I see your point. I was focusing on the equality aspect of that adage ("one for one") while neglecting the fact that (as you've pointed out) knocking someone else's teeth out doesn't bring my teeth back! But making them pay for my dental work comes closer to doing so. Although, of course, it still doesn't quite. Dentures are no substitute for the real thing. Which leads to a problem of how to assess the extent to which one action can be deemed to be equivalent in value to a different form of action. If someone has simply stolen some money, with no sentimental value and no other trauma or loss inflicted on the victim, then it's easy. But I'd say that situation would be the exception.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: September 27th, 2018, 10:24 pm
Belindi wrote: September 27th, 2018, 2:11 pm
I wrote "except within the context of tradition and precedent". You are right as regards law but the question "does society need prisons?" must be answered with an eye to changing inefficient legal methods of crime prevention. Crime does indeed have causes, and voluntary behaviour is also caused. Crime is a social problem and all social problems however intractable they be have causes.
You may be equating correlation with causation. In any case, human behavior does not have causes in the sense of "cause" understood in the sciences. In physics and other sciences, for A to be a cause of B, B must always follow A, ceteris paribus. E.g., if a hydrogen and oxygen mixture is heated to a certain temperature the mixture will always ignite, forming water vapor. Raising the temperature of that mixture (by, say, tossing a lighted match into it) is the cause of the resulting fire.

For anything A to be considered a cause of B, it must be possible to predict B, given A, with a high degree of confidence.

There is no human behavior that reliably and predictably follows from any alleged "cause." For example, while being abused or neglected as a child, or being raised by a poor, single parent in a "bad" neighborhood, or attending a poor school, etc., may be correlated with criminal behavior, they cannot be causes of that behavior --- simply because thousands of other people with similar background factors do not become criminals.
Indeed humans are not deterministic machines. The more a man is well informed and the more able he is to exercise his critical faculty the less he is controlled by passions and unthinking or immoral reactions.As you will be aware, not all men have equal opportunities to develop their intellects and moral sense.
That last sentence is true. But many who had no greater opportunities do not become criminals. Hence that difference in opportunities cannot be the cause of the criminal behavior.
While it's true that it's not a simple matter to establish the psychological causes of crimes , that is what decent people have to do so that both justice and effectiveness may be best served. I suspect that you yourself may lack psychological expertise.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021