Does Society Need Prisons?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: April 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm
Wdk7 wrote: April 19th, 2020, 8:45 pm
Ultimately most offenders will be released from prison at some point and returned to society, so why should an atempt at rehabilition not be a factor in the criminal justice system? I dont think rehabilitation can be achieved for every criminal, but if any rehabilitation can be achieved amongst the number of people being released from prison; I'd say that's still a worthy benifit to reducing overall crime.
See responses to Belindi and Marvin, just above.

The answer there is to NOT release offenders until they have fully compensated the damages they have inflicted upon their victims, and for repeat offenders, NEVER release them.
How can any man or angel compensate for raping a child ?
I agree certain repeat offenders should never be released, The criterion for release from detention should be thorough assessment of the probability of reoffending.Criminal justice, besides protecting law and order also has to demonstrate to offenders the disapproval of society.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Belindi »

Belindi wrote: April 20th, 2020, 2:04 pm
GE Morton wrote: April 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm

See responses to Belindi and Marvin, just above.

The answer there is to NOT release offenders until they have fully compensated the damages they have inflicted upon their victims, and for repeat offenders, NEVER release them.
How can any man or angel compensate for raping a child ?
I agree certain repeat offenders should never be released, The criterion for release from detention should be thorough assessment of the probability of reoffending.

Criminal justice, besides protecting law and order also has to demonstrate to offenders the disapproval of society. Prisons are inefffective for this task because prisoners commonly join a subculture for criminals within prisons, subcultures which are ruled hierarchically by the more powerful inmates.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: April 20th, 2020, 2:04 pm How can any man or angel compensate for raping a child ?
You can't. Nor for homicides. No monetary compensation can undo the wrong done, but common law tradition permits suits for wrongful death. In most cases the damages awarded are very high, and the inmate will likely spend the rest of his life working to pay it off.
I agree certain repeat offenders should never be released, The criterion for release from detention should be thorough assessment of the probability of reoffending.Criminal justice, besides protecting law and order also has to demonstrate to offenders the disapproval of society.
Well, unfortunately, those assessments by parole boards and social (pseudo)scientists are subjective and wrong as often as they are right. The only factors reliably predictive of future criminal conduct is past conduct, and perhaps age.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

GE Morton wrote: April 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm
Wdk7 wrote: April 19th, 2020, 8:45 pm
Ultimately most offenders will be released from prison at some point and returned to society, so why should an atempt at rehabilition not be a factor in the criminal justice system? I dont think rehabilitation can be achieved for every criminal, but if any rehabilitation can be achieved amongst the number of people being released from prison; I'd say that's still a worthy benifit to reducing overall crime.

The answer there is to NOT release offenders until they have fully compensated the damages they have inflicted upon their victims, and for repeat offenders, NEVER release them.
GE Morton, the statement does not seem to make sense unless it is isolated to offenders who also happen to be victimizers. In other words, considering that many convicted criminals are only charged with victimless crimes, your sentence would make no sense as written, at least if taken at face value. Using the philosophical principal of charity, I will assume you mean to talk about violent victimizers not criminal offenders, right?

If so, it still seems your statement still presents some contradictions. Namely, a deranged dangerous violent victimizer generally cannot physically compensate for the damages their victimization caused if they are in a cage, unable to work and earn income, and not receiving treatment or rehabilitation. In contrast, providing mental health treatment and rehabilitation services and, if possible to safely do, releasing the rehabilitated victimizer is what would enable the rehabilitated victimizer to attempt to earn some income to repay the debts caused by the victimization. Granted, some damage can not be undone, but there still can be value in having the victimizer pay some kind of financial restitution to the victim or the victim's family.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote: April 19th, 2020, 9:16 pm
Wdk7 wrote: April 19th, 2020, 8:45 pm
Ultimately most offenders will be released from prison at some point and returned to society, so why should an atempt at rehabilition not be a factor in the criminal justice system? I dont think rehabilitation can be achieved for every criminal, but if any rehabilitation can be achieved amongst the number of people being released from prison; I'd say that's still a worthy benifit to reducing overall crime.
See responses to Belindi and Marvin, just above.

The answer there is to NOT release offenders until they have fully compensated the damages they have inflicted upon their victims, and for repeat offenders, NEVER release them.
I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.
"As usual... it depends."
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

Scott wrote: February 20th, 2021, 2:39 pm
. . . the statement does not seem to make sense unless it is isolated to offenders who also happen to be victimizers. In other words, considering that many convicted criminals are only charged with victimless crimes, your sentence would make no sense as written, at least if taken at face value. Using the philosophical principal of charity, I will assume you mean to talk about violent victimizers not criminal offenders, right?
Right indeed. I've made clear elsewhere that my arguments apply only to "real" crimes, i.e., those with actual victims. Laws criminalizing activities that impose no injuries, losses, or risks upon others should be repealed.
If so, it still seems your statement still presents some contradictions. Namely, a deranged dangerous violent victimizer generally cannot physically compensate for the damages their victimization caused if they are in a cage, unable to work and earn income, and not receiving treatment or rehabilitation.
Per the restitution model inmates would not be kept in cages, at least not during the workday. They would work in prison industries, and kept confined until their restitution obligations were paid in full.
In contrast, providing mental health treatment and rehabilitation services and, if possible to safely do, releasing the rehabilitated victimizer is what would enable the rehabilitated victimizer to attempt to earn some income to repay the debts caused by the victimization. Granted, some damage can not be undone, but there still can be value in having the victimizer pay some kind of financial restitution to the victim or the victim's family.
The trouble is, both "mental health treatment" and "rehabilitation" are largely ineffective. Nationally, the 5 year recidivism rate for inmates released from state prisons is 77%.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986

Most of those inmates have participated in some sort of "rehabilitation" program. The best of those programs reduce recidivism by about 25% --- which means that instead of 77% re-offending, only 58% do (the success rate for most programs is considerably lower). In fact, the programs are counter-productive --- having "successfully" completed some sort of rehab program is a factor considered by parole boards for early release. Since most of those thus released will re-offend, the net result is more criminals on the streets, and more victims. Keep in mind also that the official recidivism rate counts only those released inmates who are re-arrested within 5 years. Many others also continue their criminal activities, but manage to avoid arrest (within 5 years).

The approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system. Why do we have one? Is it to "rehabilitate" the predators among us --- a spurious and Quixotic goal --- or protect us from them and secure justice for their victims? Is it to be a criminal justice system, or a criminal welfare system?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: February 20th, 2021, 5:51 pm I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.
Really? Is this a significant element of this discussion, for you? What your taxes are used for? I know this is a common attitude in the US, but it does seem to cloud the real issues, sometimes...?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by LuckyR »

Pattern-chaser wrote: February 21st, 2021, 10:00 am
LuckyR wrote: February 20th, 2021, 5:51 pm I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.
Really? Is this a significant element of this discussion, for you? What your taxes are used for? I know this is a common attitude in the US, but it does seem to cloud the real issues, sometimes...?
When others are advocating life sentances? Yes, the recidivism rate is important to me, why wouldn't it be? As to mindful stewardship of limited public funds when there is so much public need, I am surprised you are not a fan, but so be it.

Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process. Others set up processes that emulate their values and let these processes grind away and whatever outcome pops out the other end is acceptable. Neither is superior, just two different ways of looking at it.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Robert66 »

I agree with LuckyR that the high cost of imprisonment is a crucial factor to consider.

Societies generally need less prisoners, while still needing some (preferably fewer) prisons for the worst offenders, as has been amply covered already. With a shift toward private prisons occurring globally, a solution looms into view. The private prison owners should be remunerated according to the success they achieve in reducing recidivism, and finding gainful employment for criminals. If the business model for these owners is merely more prisoners = more income, then we can surely expect poor societal outcomes.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by LuckyR »

Robert66 wrote: February 21st, 2021, 5:15 pm I agree with LuckyR that the high cost of imprisonment is a crucial factor to consider.

Societies generally need less prisoners, while still needing some (preferably fewer) prisons for the worst offenders, as has been amply covered already. With a shift toward private prisons occurring globally, a solution looms into view. The private prison owners should be remunerated according to the success they achieve in reducing recidivism, and finding gainful employment for criminals. If the business model for these owners is merely more prisoners = more income, then we can surely expect poor societal outcomes.
Unfortunately for private prisons, they have a reputation for paying kickbacks to judges for sentancing prisoners to their business. Not a fan.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: February 21st, 2021, 2:50 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 21st, 2021, 10:00 am
LuckyR wrote: February 20th, 2021, 5:51 pm I for one am not interested in paying for the healthcare for elderly convicts who are at an age where recidivism is statistically unlikely.
Really? Is this a significant element of this discussion, for you? What your taxes are used for? I know this is a common attitude in the US, but it does seem to cloud the real issues, sometimes...?
When others are advocating life sentances? Yes, the recidivism rate is important to me, why wouldn't it be? As to mindful stewardship of limited public funds when there is so much public need, I am surprised you are not a fan, but so be it.

I commented on your mention of cost, not recidivism (which is a separate issue).


I think that cost is only one factor in such matters, and possibly not the most important one. So I tend not to take a great deal of notice of cost, when compared with justice; the rights of victims; the rights of offenders; the rights of all the other members of society; the needs of all members of society; the duties and responsibilities of victims, offenders and everyone else; whether imprisonment is an effective form of punishment; whether punishment is the optimal response to offences; and so on and on.

Cost belongs in that list, of course, but only as one element of many, IMO.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by GE Morton »

LuckyR wrote: February 21st, 2021, 2:50 pm
Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process.
I agree, in substance.

Per the restitution model there are no fixed prison terms. The inmate is kept confined until his restitution obligation is paid in full. That obligation consists of the damages/losses inflicted upon his victims, as determined in a hearing following conviction, plus the costs to the State to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, plus his ongoing costs of confinement. Those costs must be factored into any cost-benefit calculation.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Robert66 »

LuckyR wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 4:56 am
Robert66 wrote: February 21st, 2021, 5:15 pm I agree with LuckyR that the high cost of imprisonment is a crucial factor to consider.

Societies generally need less prisoners, while still needing some (preferably fewer) prisons for the worst offenders, as has been amply covered already. With a shift toward private prisons occurring globally, a solution looms into view. The private prison owners should be remunerated according to the success they achieve in reducing recidivism, and finding gainful employment for criminals. If the business model for these owners is merely more prisoners = more income, then we can surely expect poor societal outcomes.
Unfortunately for private prisons, they have a reputation for paying kickbacks to judges for sentancing prisoners to their business. Not a fan.
Ok, you are not a fan - neither am I. Doesn't mean there isn't a better way, eg as I have outlined.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

GE Morton wrote: February 20th, 2021, 10:08 pm
Scott wrote: February 20th, 2021, 2:39 pm
. . . the statement does not seem to make sense unless it is isolated to offenders who also happen to be victimizers. In other words, considering that many convicted criminals are only charged with victimless crimes, your sentence would make no sense as written, at least if taken at face value. Using the philosophical principal of charity, I will assume you mean to talk about violent victimizers not criminal offenders, right?
Right indeed. I've made clear elsewhere that my arguments apply only to "real" crimes, i.e., those with actual victims. Laws criminalizing activities that impose no injuries, losses, or risks upon others should be repealed.
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".

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. I make these requests solely so I can understand you better, and if you choose to fulfill these terminological requests, which is totally your choice one way or the other, then I do appreciate it.


Scott wrote:In contrast, providing mental health treatment and rehabilitation services and, if possible to safely do, releasing the rehabilitated victimizer is what would enable the rehabilitated victimizer to attempt to earn some income to repay the debts caused by the victimization. Granted, some damage can not be undone, but there still can be value in having the victimizer pay some kind of financial restitution to the victim or the victim's family.
GE Morton wrote: February 20th, 2021, 10:08 pm The trouble is, both "mental health treatment" and "rehabilitation" are largely ineffective. Nationally, the 5 year recidivism rate for inmates released from state prisons is 77%.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986
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.

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.

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.

Needless to say, we must be very careful--cynical even--about the labels assigned to any government program on any government website, which will presumably tend to reflect an extreme pro-establishment bias.
GE Morton wrote: February 20th, 2021, 10:08 pmThe approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system.
Yes, exactly. Well put.

GE Morton wrote: February 20th, 2021, 10:08 pm Why do we have one?
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.

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.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Does Society Need Prisons?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: February 22nd, 2021, 11:04 am
LuckyR wrote: February 21st, 2021, 2:50 pm
Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process.
I agree, in substance.

Per the restitution model there are no fixed prison terms. The inmate is kept confined until his restitution obligation is paid in full. That obligation consists of the damages/losses inflicted upon his victims, as determined in a hearing following conviction, plus the costs to the State to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, plus his ongoing costs of confinement. Those costs must be factored into any cost-benefit calculation.

A question: how does this cost-based approach benefit society, offenders or victims? What are re-offending rates? Are offenders rehabilitated?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
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