Philosophy Discussion Forums

Humans have instincts that will always lead to survive. No matter how much nurture is geared to non-violence, human nature at it most primitive and will want to survive. You might get the exception of a person that will sacrifice himself for another.But for the majority of humans they will choose themselves over another.
It's this instinct of survival that will superceed ones own want over another's. Humans have emotions that are fragile and can be swayed. Humans will always have a possibility for aggression. To what degree depends on many variables.
In no time in history has there been a totally non violent or non criminal society. At some level there will be some type of offense of one person to another the level depends again on many variables. Depending on the society, crime will be measured;according to their standards. And sanctions will be imposed. Prisons are nessacary for punishment or rehabilitation. Or we can use public punishment as a deterrent. Even children raised in positive environments committed offenses.

Jaa_intelligent wrote:Humans have instincts that will always lead to survive. No matter how much nurture is geared to non-violence, human nature at it most primitive and will want to survive. You might get the exception of a person that will sacrifice himself for another.But for the majority of humans they will choose themselves over another.
It's this instinct of survival that will superceed ones own want over another's. Humans have emotions that are fragile and can be swayed. Humans will always have a possibility for aggression. To what degree depends on many variables.
In no time in history has there been a totally non violent or non criminal society. At some level there will be some type of offense of one person to another the level depends again on many variables. Depending on the society, crime will be measured;according to their standards. And sanctions will be imposed. Prisons are nessacary for punishment or rehabilitation. Or we can use public punishment as a deterrent. Even children raised in positive environments committed offenses.

There is no doubt that we have to include the survival of tyrannosaurus rex within our natures. However, we are also herd animals who want the collective to survive. It would be a great thing if we truly knew what man is, tyrannosaurus rex or pregnant doe. Notions of what the human is change through time and cultural trends.

As it stands and has stood for two thousand five hundred years man is capable of loving his neighbour as himself and this view of man is what we ought to cultivate. Few men are beyond redemption from aggressive dispositions.

This being so, prisons should be purposely formed and run so as to rehabilitate and confine, not so as to punish and deter. The deterrence effect comes with the physical confinement and needs no augmentation by means of cruelty.

Belinda wrote:

Jaa_intelligent wrote:Humans have instincts that will always lead to survive. No matter how much nurture is geared to non-violence, human nature at it most primitive and will want to survive. You might get the exception of a person that will sacrifice himself for another.But for the majority of humans they will choose themselves over another.
It's this instinct of survival that will superceed ones own want over another's. Humans have emotions that are fragile and can be swayed. Humans will always have a possibility for aggression. To what degree depends on many variables.
In no time in history has there been a totally non violent or non criminal society. At some level there will be some type of offense of one person to another the level depends again on many variables. Depending on the society, crime will be measured;according to their standards. And sanctions will be imposed. Prisons are nessacary for punishment or rehabilitation. Or we can use public punishment as a deterrent. Even children raised in positive environments committed offenses.

There is no doubt that we have to include the survival of tyrannosaurus rex within our natures. However, we are also herd animals who want the collective to survive. It would be a great thing if we truly knew what man is, tyrannosaurus rex or pregnant doe. Notions of what the human is change through time and cultural trends.

As it stands and has stood for two thousand five hundred years man is capable of loving his neighbour as himself and this view of man is what we ought to cultivate. Few men are beyond redemption from aggressive dispositions.

This being so, prisons should be purposely formed and run so as to rehabilitate and confine, not so as to punish and deter. The deterrence effect comes with the physical confinement and needs no augmentation by means of cruelty.

Cruelty is relative. For example a below average third world life might be considered "crueler" than that of some first world prisoners.

And still those societies have prisons there too. Society does need prisons. To think that we can somehow change the human condition to where social control is not nessacary, is arrogant. Humans would have to evolve mentally and dare I say spiritually. We have a long way to reach that level.

Jaa_intelligent wrote:And still those societies have prisons there too. Society does need prisons. To think that we can somehow change the human condition to where social control is not nessacary, is arrogant. Humans would have to evolve mentally and dare I say spiritually. We have a long way to reach that level.

Evolution of humans will only move median behavior, not outlier behavior. Thus the permanent need for controlling said outliers.

Good point. This is why the type of evolution I speak of would have to be a mass change. A change that would go through all humanity. So to reach all at once. So all would enjoy the benifit. Humanity would have to transcend itself.

Jaa_intelligent wrote:Good point. This is why the type of evolution I speak of would have to be a mass change. A change that would go through all humanity. So to reach all at once. So all would enjoy the benifit. Humanity would have to transcend itself.

I totally get what you are implying, but outliers are not (by definition) part of the "mass".

Jaa_intelligent wrote:Good point. This is why the type of evolution I speak of would have to be a mass change. A change that would go through all humanity. So to reach all at once. So all would enjoy the benifit. Humanity would have to transcend itself.

Yes but humans are unlike other animals in that humans change via cultures of beliefs and practices as much as by way of biology. This is where artists and liberal teachers and prophets come in. They lead cultural changes in the general direction of what is good and true, sometimes at great personal risk.

We humans do in fact transcend our biology. No human is born a Republican, a Democrat, a Christian, a Muslim or a philosopher. To a large extent it's culture that makes us what we are.

Jaa_intelligent wrote:And still those societies have prisons there too. Society does need prisons. To think that we can somehow change the human condition to where social control is not nessacary, is arrogant. Humans would have to evolve mentally and dare I say spiritually. We have a long way to reach that level.

I think prisons can be a stepping stone in our evolution. But we better think of them as institutions that serve healing rather than punishment.

I rather like the analogy Sam Harris made: Killers are like crocodiles. It's hard to blame a crocodile for taking your leg in a chance encounter. It's what it does. A killer has the mind of a killer due to reasons outside his control, genes, upbringing, violent influences. Ultimately that is the misfortune of that person and that of his victims, but it's not their fault just like it's not the fault of the crocodile to having been born a crocodile. Still crocodiles must be kept away from people they could kill, and similarly a killer must be kept away from potential victims until we can be reasonably sure that his mind has healed. That might be never. But if we keep him locked away for life, it's not for punishment.

Humans are not crocodiles. Humans are the highest life form on the planet. Humans have the capacity mentally to change there condition. It can happen through hard work, counseling, meditation; in some form humans can change. That's one reason humans have not been extinct .
Obiously if we didn't need prisons we wouldn't have them.

Littleendian wrote:I think prisons can be a stepping stone in our evolution. But we better think of them as institutions that serve healing rather than punishment.

Beautifully put.

Prisons have long been necessary to protect the public from dangerous people. Unfortunately, the prison system is chaotic due to the war on drugs that has created a huge prison population. People who are only a danger to themselves are thrown into these corrupting and damaging environments, resulting in the fostering, rather than stifling, of corruption. Vulnerable non-corrupt, non dangerous people should be placed with criminals just because they are involved with illegal drugs.

What would the prison system be without the war on drugs? What would be the impact on private prison companies if drugs were decriminalised and treated as a health issue? I wonder if it would impact on the terms of contract with the government?

This topic is commonly framed as one between those who feel prisons are for rehabilitation vs those who think of them as punishment. But both miss the most important role of the prison system, the segregation of law breakers from their victims, ie protection.

The reality is no treatment ever invented has a 100% success rate, let alone a sociological "treatment", so regardless of future progress in the rehabilitation of criminals, there will always be a need for prisons. The only society without prisons will be the one with the 100% capital punishment one.

What we need are more creative deterrents for defaults on fines and attendances than prison. Not much puts more fear into the hearts of the middle class than having their soft, white selves being hurled into an ocean of aggressive and rapacious criminality. For some reason, people seem to think that weak inmates deserve to be repeatedly raped and damaged because they shouldn't have committed the crime, yet it's just fine that denialist bisexual psychopaths in prison are rewarded for their (most likely) far worse crimes by having a constant flow of young sacrificial lambs (ie. small, white men) to rape.

Why would so many in an allegedly "civilised" society accept that bisexual denialist rapists are effectively rewarded for their crimes? They are placed with the objects of their desire - a constant flow of young, naive smaller inmates to torture, despoil and destroy without the stigma of "being gay" they would deal with if the opposite sex was available. Meanwhile, the rape and torture of the young and vulnerable in prison is dismissed by most people as "well, they shouldn't have committed the crime".

The way things stand, you could say that the punishment of a bisexual psychopath in denial for the crime of murder is to be placed in a perfect environment where all of his/her needs are met. Meanwhile, their young victims are punished with sustained torture for the crime of not being strong enough to defend themselves. Authorities have consistently failed to segregate dangerous psychopaths, permitting their corruption to spread and infect prison populations. They allow it because they find it easiest to "appease" the most dangerous criminals by allowing them to satiate themselves with victims.

In truth, prisons are a hellhole of corruption and the staff are not exempt. Often corruption in prisons runs from superintendent level down. If you work for corrective services you soon find that you either play the game and don't question anything or suffer the consequences. The system itself has become increasingly corrupt, which is hardly surprising. We need a form of control that does not require the creation of criminal conglomerations.

Greta wrote:What we need are more creative deterrents for defaults on fines and attendances than prison. Not much puts more fear into the hearts of the middle class than having their soft, white selves being hurled into an ocean of aggressive and rapacious criminality. For some reason, people seem to think that weak inmates deserve to be repeatedly raped and damaged because they shouldn't have committed the crime, yet it's just fine that denialist bisexual psychopaths in prison are rewarded for their (most likely) far worse crimes by having a constant flow of young sacrificial lambs (ie. small, white men) to rape.

Why would so many in an allegedly "civilised" society accept that bisexual denialist rapists are effectively rewarded for their crimes? They are placed with the objects of their desire - a constant flow of young, naive smaller inmates to torture, despoil and destroy without the stigma of "being gay" they would deal with if the opposite sex was available. Meanwhile, the rape and torture of the young and vulnerable in prison is dismissed by most people as "well, they shouldn't have committed the crime".

The way things stand, you could say that the punishment of a bisexual psychopath in denial for the crime of murder is to be placed in a perfect environment where all of his/her needs are met. Meanwhile, their young victims are punished with sustained torture for the crime of not being strong enough to defend themselves. Authorities have consistently failed to segregate dangerous psychopaths, permitting their corruption to spread and infect prison populations. They allow it because they find it easiest to "appease" the most dangerous criminals by allowing them to satiate themselves with victims.

In truth, prisons are a hellhole of corruption and the staff are not exempt. Often corruption in prisons runs from superintendent level down. If you work for corrective services you soon find that you either play the game and don't question anything or suffer the consequences. The system itself has become increasingly corrupt, which is hardly surprising. We need a form of control that does not require the creation of criminal conglomerations.

Totally different topic than the OP, but a good one.

No doubt any area that escapes scrutiny and is awash with funding is a breeding ground for corruption of numerous types.

Yes, of course we need prisons but we should stop criminalizing so many things or at least not punish non violent offenders by sending them to prison. If for nothing more than the cost to society. Why should we pay to house someone if they aren't a violent threat?