Feel free to get specific or general. Just want to hear peoples' initial thoughts and then we can all discuss further as the thread grows as well!

Prison reform is an interesting topic.

I think a lot of people can agree that we'd like to see drug offenders not end up in prison, and ideally if we can lessen the number of people in prison that'll make the prison population easier to manage and result in less overcrowding which is never good for quality of services.

I think virtually everyone can agree with prison reform in theory, it's when it gets brought down to the practical level of actually providing more funding or putting prison guards through "bullshit" training that can result in some pushback.

I will say that the poor food quality bothers me though. I've never been to prison, but I did spend time in the military and honestly a good rest and decent food go a very long way. The temperature needs to be comfortable as well, and I've heard this is a problem in some prisons.

It's a difficult issue because prison guards aren't the cream of the crop. After you've had piss thrown at you or been attacked several times, your attitude changes. There are some genuinely terrible and mentally ill people in prison so sometimes when these idealists from outside come in with their grand solutions I get a little skeptical. I do believe in providing the basics though, but I would imagine bringing in increased funding would be an uphill battle in local communities.

Feel free to get specific or general. Just want to hear peoples' initial thoughts and then we can all discuss further as the thread grows as well! — The Questioning Bookworm

The incarceration rate by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate#United_States

The US appears to be at the top of the list in terms of incarcerations per capita. It is likely that inaccurate information is provided by certain governments, like China and others, but as to nations the US would like to compare itself to, it clearly incarcerates at a rate far too high.

This data is tied very closed to the Black Lives Matter movement, the defunding of the police movement, and the current riots we're seeing. US incarcerations rates will drop if there's a real effort to stop incarcerating non-violent offenders and legalizing drug use. That's a quick way to bring about a sudden incarceration drop, but I still think the US would compare unfavorably to other Western nations even with that adjustment. American culture is violent, although that violence is kept at bay in most communities, but very much out of control in others. The easy answer to this problem is to point to the abundance of firearms pervasive in US society, although that response is far too simple.

The US has a deep seated cultural problem that responds to conflict violently and unforgivingly. It's a great place to be when you're in the right, not so much when you're in the wrong.

I did see, by the way, that Oregon decriminalized heroin, cocaine, and meth, reducing the sentence to the equivalent of a traffic ticket. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-drug-decriminalization-no-jail-time-for-small-amounts-of-heroin-other-street-drugs/ar-BB1aPYWy?ocid=uxbndlbing

I have visited a prison. On feels the toxicity of the place at a distance even approaching it, and recovers slowly after leaving. There are, broadly speaking, two populations in a prison: the prisoners, obviously, but also the guards. We all spend most of our lives between walls of one or another kind, but the notion of being controlled by and subject to another has got to be intolerable to a man - or woman - accustomed to liberty and freedom.

No doubt there are individuals the society needs to keep in cages. Setting them aside - and assuming they can be identified - do the others need to be caged? Does caging work? Does it rehabilitate?

I've felt that for lots of crimes that an option of flogging should be in play. Short, brutal, humiliating, punishing, and done. All the details of which to be worked out and in part dependent on the crime. It's a guess on my part, but I think many criminals would prefer it to years in a cage, and that likely flogging, done right, would be more likely to prevent further crimes.

. In terms of the history of prisons, it's a fairly modern phenomenon, with jails having existed at first only to hold a prisoner until trial and then some type of corporeal punishment to follow. The concept of locking people away was meant as a more humane way of punishment because we today couldn't stomach beating the shit out of the convicted and then setting them loose.

I don't know what the better solution might be, but I think if we go about it with the belief that imprisonment is the last resort and all other avenues should first be considered, we might end up at a better place. Or maybe not. Maybe we'd just end up with more violence once serious repercussions are removed. I don't think there's a simple solution, but it's a great big problem.

what the better solution might be, — Hanover

This the tough one. My own view of flogging is that it would be updated, highly structured, and ultimately remedial and rehabilitative. In other words, no just beating the s*** out of a person and then turning them loose.

It seems to me a sentence for a crime should attempt to satisfy four main requirements (and likely a host of smaller administrative requirements). To the degree reasonably possible, 1) The victim should be satisfied, 2) the community should be satisfied, 3) the perp. should be "satisfied," and 4) prospective criminals should be "satisfied." "Satisfied" meaning somewhat different things in each case.

Part of the problem is that the crime usually involves costs that the criminal can in no way in his person repay. - In that sense, perhaps also the victim needs a program of rehabilitation. - A word suggests itself as comprehending the whole problem: "reconciliation." Balancing the books. And depending on the mess, sometimes a grueling process - nothing touchy-feely about it at all.

Prison itself, though, is obscene is oh-so-many ways. Not least is the expense. Society has an obligation to the criminal - but not an open-ended obligation. What are the options? To kill him, to maintain him apart for the rest of his natural life or some significant part of that life, to "refit" and return him to society asap.

Imo there must be a number of ways to achieve the third quickly, efficiently, effectively.

Fyodor Dostoevsky once said: "The degree of a civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." — The Questioning Bookworm

I don't disagree. What you're neglecting to keep in mind is some countries are not "free and open", as in.. some people don't make it to prison. And no, there is no social media and people pulling out phones to document it.

drug-related crimes — The Questioning Bookworm

Sure, until some kid gets too high (I mean REALLY high and overlooks a traffic light or sign and ends up making a seemingly minor yet incredibly consequential driving or operating error resulting in injury to property or persons. Or even, quite literally smokes his whole life away. Wasted potential. Or someone takes a little too much coke and has a heart attack -- or thinks he is lol. Ambulances are expensive. Or takes too much mushrooms or LSD and thinks the lady next to him is a shape-shifting creature and punches her in the mouth. Or screams and runs, disturbing the peace at least.

non-violent robberies — The Questioning Bookworm

So just because a person isn't shot to death it's "non-violent" -- no the trauma can last a lifetime. Total withdrawal from society, PTSD, flashbacks, etc.

Etc, etc..

Edit: No I get the idea of a non-violent robbery, breaking and entering into an unoccupied residence (which is still pretty freaky) or even just swiping something when the person isn't looking. Fact is, people do these things and get away with it. If there weren't any punishment or penalty for it if caught, why would people especially a young and possibly misguided youth be discouraged from doing so? It's a chain reaction, snowball effect.

Sure, until some kid gets too high (I mean REALLY high and overlooks a traffic light or sign and ends up making a seemingly minor yet incredibly consequential driving or operating error resulting in injury to property or persons. Or even, quite literally smokes his whole life away. Wasted potential. Or someone takes a little too much coke and has a heart attack -- or thinks he is lol. Ambulances are expensive. Or takes too many mushrooms or LSD and thinks the lady next to him is a shape-shifting creature and punches her in the mouth. Or screams and runs, disturbing the peace at least. — Outlander

These are interesting hypotheticals. If this was the case, which sometimes happens, I still do not see how throwing someone in a cage with a potentially poor standard of living does anything positive for the person or the victim. It may make the victim feel better by getting revenge through the criminal justice system. But what good does it do? Clearly, there are moral principles that are implied in your post and mine that we both presume to be true when examining prisons and crime. So are we to just satisfy the revenge of victims and throw human beings behind bars and hope they get better? I just don't really see how this fixes anything. This happening to some people may make others not act this way, but I think that doesn't solve the issue or get at the meat of the point of disagreement, which is a proper punishment that is still humane.

So just because a person isn't shot to death it's "non-violent" -- no the trauma can last a lifetime. Total withdrawal from society, PTSD, flashbacks, etc.

People can receive trauma from all sorts of things not even related to crime. Should we meet the potential trauma of a non-violent robbery victim by throwing the guilty into a cage for many years and potentially giving this person trauma? Still don't see how this is okay. — Outlander

I think virtually everyone can agree with prison reform in theory, it's when it gets brought down to the practical level of actually providing more funding or putting prison guards through "bullshit" training that can result in some pushback. — BitconnectCarlos

Prison guards can find different work within a humane prison system. Obviously, there will be some pushback, but we should spend less money on upkeep and hiring guards and more money on mental health specialists, educators, etc. for prisons, in my humble opinion. Also, we should not be using prisoners for free labor. Slavery ring a bell? Prisoners are cut off from the world as it is, most of them can't vote, and in some places, they are used for free/slave-like labor. This seems to be a problem too. I feel like there would be pushback more from individuals who aren't even in prison.

It's a difficult issue because prison guards aren't the cream of the crop. After you've had piss thrown at you or been attacked several times, your attitude changes. There are some genuinely terrible and mentally ill people in prison so sometimes when these idealists from outside come in with their grand solutions I get a little skeptical. I do believe in providing the basics though, but I would imagine bringing in increased funding would be an uphill battle in local communities. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree with this. But does the funding have to be increased? Can budgeting be properly executed to allocate money more toward rehab rather than the way things are? I guess we'll see with the new administration coming into office - through grants in federalism.

I've felt that for lots of crimes that an option of flogging should be in play. Short, brutal, humiliating, punishing, and done. All the details of which to be worked out and in part dependent on the crime. It's a guess on my part, but I think many criminals would prefer it to years in a cage, and that likely flogging, done right, would be more likely to prevent further crimes. — tim wood

This is an interesting view I have not heard yet. So, thank you very much for sharing your post/views. I have not visited a prison or been in one, but I've read up on it and have heard stories from others. I don't think most of them enjoy living in a cage for long periods of time at all. But, on the matter of flogging, this is an interesting take. Would offenders of the law or individuals with criminals acts actually prefer floggings over long durations of being trapped in cells? I guess it would be short and painful, but it would short and would probably still deter crime from people. I guess the next question would be how humane is this form of punishment relative to living in cages for long durations of time? Which is 'worse' for the prisoner?

It seems to me a sentence for a crime should attempt to satisfy four main requirements (and likely a host of smaller administrative requirements). To the degree reasonably possible, 1) The victim should be satisfied, 2) the community should be satisfied, 3) the perp. should be "satisfied," and 4) prospective criminals should be "satisfied." "Satisfied" meaning somewhat different things in each case.

Part of the problem is that the crime usually involves costs that the criminal can in no way in his person repay. - In that sense, perhaps also the victim needs a program of rehabilitation. - A word suggests itself as comprehending the whole problem: "reconciliation." Balancing the books. And depending on the mess, sometimes a grueling process - nothing touchy-feely about it at all. — tim wood

This is a very interesting post. Thanks for sharing. I haven't thought about it in this way until now. Seems to be a better way to go about it instead of flogging someone and letting them loose or locking someone away from society for long durations of time to satisfy only the victim and government involved...Reconciliation seems to be the better path here rather than pure vengeance or revenge for one side of the crime without any sort of effective rehab for the majority of prisoners, agreed.

but I think many criminals would prefer it — tim wood

Pain is part of life. It's something we all experience. To someone who views another person as low enough to steal from or injure, has more than likely already been through a significant amount of displeasure as is- ie. you're right. And that's the problem. People (most people and usually) have things because they worked for them. That took time. If you're broke and rob someone of a nice watch or something you're not taking "pleasure" from them per se, you're taking something much more valuable. Their time. Something they (again usually) worked hard for. You can't replace that with a five minute beating or "flogging" because that's what separates the criminal from the law-abider, the "good" person from the "bad" person- an ingrained and inherent lack of concern for pain and suffering, be it toward them or toward another. Naturally, pain hurts. So if a criminal would have the option to be in pain or not be, obviously they'd choose the latter. Anyone would. Selfish or not. But incarceration not only punishes the perpetrator but was supposed to (and I agree most of the time it does not) rehabilitate the person and/or give them time to "change their ways". Again, just watch prison survival videos. Someone decent enough, perhaps not perfect but with some sense of decency, goes in for getting a little too drunk and mistakenly (sometimes not even remembering) hurting someone again by accident- and leaves as a hardened criminal with almost no if any compassion or humanity left. If it weren't for that, as some people are really bad, not only does incarceration punish/rehabilitate it removes people who are a cancer to society from said society. It was supposed to rehabilitate, at least give them every chance and opportunity to, where they come out reformed, and not worse out then when they went it. It doesn't. A huge moral and financial hellhole.

My point about being broke, is that if someone steals and/or kills (rather, doesn't mind doing so to steal) they often have little to no money or talent. It's a crime of "necessity" be it by their own laziness or ineptitude or not. Perhaps they just spend whatever they stole on drugs/fun times/intangible goods. You can't "restitute" that today seeing as all they'd be good for is physical labor and you have machines that can do the work of 50 men at 2 cents an hour for current without any chance of hostility/subversion/laziness/purposely not working. So. That doesn't work.

To me, focusing on the issue of prison reform is a bit misguided. Certainly there are issues with our prison system (I.e. privatization, abuse of inmates, it’s ineffectiveness, etc.), but the underlying issue of why we have so many people committing crimes (or being falsely convicted, if you prefer) remains unaddressed.

At bottom, this is a societal issue. I believe statistics show that poverty and being a member of a racial minority are the biggest predictors of future incarceration, meaning that all three are correlated (not to be confused with causation!). So a good place to start would be to reduce poverty across the board, and to provide better opportunities for racial minorities. The issue of racism is obviously a factor in both categories that needs to be addressed as well. The underlying idea, or assumption, behind this is that desperate people are more likely to resort to crime as a way to survive.

Aside from this, there will always be criminals that need to be dealt with appropriately and effectively, so prison reform is necessary for that reason. Psychology shows that punishment is largely ineffective. In order for it to be effective it has to be very consistent. The prison system/law enforcement is not able to consistently punish criminals. By this I mean that for every person who gets caught doing a crime, there are exponentially more that do not get caught. So why are we even supporting a system of punishment which is shown to be ineffective? To me the very idea of punishment is outdated.

Punishment in general should only be preventative and restorative, never retributive. Hurting someone (including locking them away as a kind of hurting them) just to get back at them for hurting someone else is pointless and ethically unjustifiable.

If they need to be locked up (or in any other way acted upon) to prevent them from causing harm to others, then to the extent that's necessary it's justifiable, and beyond that is unjustifiable.

After they have harmed others, they can be forced to make restitution to the others, either by doing whatever it necessary to make it right themselves if they can and will, or by taking property from them to pay others to make it right. If it can never be made right, like a murder, then taking property from them forever is appropriate.

Obviously the very notion of victimless crimes violates these principles horribly, and others can probably supply the statistics (if they haven't already upthread) that in America at least, and probably many other places too, most people get locked up for victimless crimes.

There is a clear motive for the ruling class to support the status quo, because you can't rule people except when they break the law, and in the US, you literally can't legally enslave people unless they break the law, in which case it's then perfectly fine, go right ahead! Is it any surprise that those we lock up and permit the enslavement of are disproportionately the same class of people who were previously just enslaved without any such prerequisite?

You can't "restitute" that today seeing as all they'd be good for is physical labor and you have machines that can do the work of 50 men at 2 cents an hour for current without any chance of hostility/subversion/laziness/purposely not working. — Outlander

It it takes machines 2 cents to restore the damage caused by a crime, then fine the criminal 2 cents and pay the machine-owners to do the restitution.

When restitution becomes easier thanks to technology, the damage done by the crime is proportionally less serious, because it's easily fixed, so it costing the perpetrator less in restitution is perfectly reasonable.

We need secure prisons for dangerous criminals who are likely to pose a serious threat to society. How many would that be? Far less than the present prison census. Violent gang leaders, hit men, serial murderers... yes. Lock 'em up for life or execute them.

Society has collective responsibilities to its members as well, and ought to arrange things so that being good, and not resorting to crime, is easier--a more difficult proposition than building lots of concrete bunkers to stuff people into.

Will we do a better job improving society so that fewer people turn to predatory crime? I'm not confident.

Which is 'worse' for the prisoner? — The Questioning Bookworm

(Aside from the problems with retributive justice in general...) Make it optional and let them decide? Stay in this cage for 5 years or get flogged and leave immediately, your call. You're free to leave so long as you go through the flogging (and the amount of flogging decreases with time serves, until there's none after it's all been served).

So what evidence do we have that corporeal punishment (beating, whipping, caning, shock, etc.) works as a deterrent to crime, and what are the psychological damages to the person performing the whipping and the person receiving?

No machine can bring a person back to life or restore peace of mind and faith in a given justice system. I'm speaking about "restitution" to avoid incarceration from a useless, broke criminal- it can't be done. The entire lifetimes of 50 of them can be replaced by a machine, hundreds, thousands even. All of them can actually. You can't "make someone pay you back" and have justice if they don't have anything to begin with, which is why some steal and/or murder (even not by original intent), often because of laziness or inability to do anything useful. And people who don't care about one another enough to steal or harm another obviously don't view pain or suffering as a deterrent. These are hardened criminals, some at least, I wouldn't even call them human, who would kill you, your mother, and who knows perhaps even theirs for a 50 dollar bill.

So we're back to my point as to why people who commit crimes have to be in jail. If they don't have anything worth anything to take, and they're effectively useless per modern innovation, what else can you do but lock them up? The answer is nothing. Nothing constitutional and that's just how it is.

As I said above, I don’t actually support retributive punishments at all, but if it’s a question as to which is worse for the criminals, just let them decide.

My point about restitution is that if machines really can fix things that cheaply, then the severity of the crime itself is diminished, so the punishment SHOULD be less. The point isn’t to make the criminal work hard as retribution, it’s just to make things right for the victim.

If the harm isn’t reparable, then the restitution the criminal owes is unlimited, and they’ll be paying for it the rest of their lives, even if what they can pay is a trivial amount.

And if they’re still an active harm to others, then as I said above already, that’s a reason to keep them
locked up.

But just retribution isn’t.

just retribution — Pfhorrest

I didn't mean that, I meant in tandem with again a utopian idea of prison where the person has time, opportunity, and resources to reform, while realizing "oh I f***ed up", which often expands into two schools of thought: A.) let me not do that again or B.) let me not get caught so easily which both- usually involve some sort of discouragement of egregious (if not just blatant) behavior that is destructive to others.

If we've grown weary of running folks into cages and we're uncomfortable busting heads, and we're not naïve enough to think we can change hearts and minds, we need to be more creative in our punishments. I think we should return to banishment.

What we would do is take all the felons and send them off to a secured part of the nation and let them figure out their existence there. We'd name the place Felonia. They could elect who they wanted, create whatever industry they wanted, and, after a certain number of years of good work in Felonia, we could allow them to return to the rest of the nation. If the castaways wish to form their own prisons, they could do that, or they could engage in an infinite regress and cast off their worst members into a sub-banishment zone, and then those could then create a sub-sub banishment zone until they had finally separated out the worst person of all time.

What appeals to me is that we don't entirely deprive those in Felonia the ability to carry out the purpose of their existence and there remains a right to return after repentance. It has a religious feel to it, so I can feel good about it.

then those could then create a sub-sub banishment zone until they had finally separated out the worst person of all time. — Hanover

How or why would felons doing so separate the good from bad let alone the worst person of all time lol. If anything it would be the opposite.

Where were you thinking Felonia should be? Depending on one's politics, Manhattan? Georgia? Los Angeles? Puerto Rico? North Dakota? Isle Royale (its in Lake Superior--(206 square miles--much bigger than Manhattan and unoccupied, except by wolves and moose)? Aleutian Islands? Or maybe Russia would rent us a couple of gulags in Siberia.

Banishment would have some real, positive benefits.

Given the high cost of crime and punishment, it behooves us to spend more money on prevention. Poverty + harshly uneven opportunity in education, employment, health, housing, and so on contribute to crime because it makes people bitter, resentful, and unwilling to abide by the social norms of polite society.

Granted, there are people who commit crime who had some opportunity -- and even made use of it. But a lot of crime comes out of a collective of bad circumstances.

A better society will probably produce less crime. No guarantees, but improving our society makes more sense than what we have been doing in the last 50 years (like the neoliberal regime).

I agree with all of that already, the comment of mine you're responding to was just a narrow response to Bookworm's conundrum in a scenario where we didn't do that.

discouragement of egregious (if not just blatant) behavior that is destructive to others — Outlander

Which should be proportional to that destruction, no?

So if you do something destructive to others that's easily fixed, even if only because of modern technology, then having to do or pay someone else to do that easy fix is discouragement proportional to the destruction.

You're suggestion that the ease of fixing something with modern technology means restitution is infeasible suggests that you think that such restitution "isn't punishment enough". But if the destruction caused is so easily fixed, then having to do the easy fix should be punishment enough. Looking for more punishment beyond that is just retributive.

Meanwhile if you do something destructive that is not easily fixed, or even unfixable (like murder), then you're going to have to do a lot more to make up for it, perhaps indefinitely more if it can't be made up for.

If the prospect of that makes you give no fucks and just do whatever regardless of the harm to others, then you've put yourself in the same category as anyone else who is like that for any reason, and need to be locked up for others' safety until that changes.

If instead you would rather (and are able to) live freely in polite society still, and just owe an unlimited debt for your crime, then that's an option too.

TBH I do pragmatically think that the debt owed even for murder should be finite, but then we're tasked with calculating the value of a human life, and I don't know how to begin approaching that project.

Or maybe Russia would rent us a couple of gulags in Siberia. — Bitter Crank

I dunno man, there's something strategic about freezing cold. Not only with generational knowledge can you learn to not only adapt but be comfortable, think about how the universe works. Heat powers everything. If you're alive, you're warm ie. produce heat. You can create heat, powerful, even painful, blistering heat with just two twigs. You can't "create" cold. Without modern chemicals rather their application (Freon, air conditioning, etc). Everyones talking about global warming, who knows, maybe those areas will remain the last habitable zones.

You're suggestion that the ease of fixing something with modern technology means restitution is infeasible suggests that you think that such restitution "isn't punishment enough". — Pfhorrest

Not at all. I'm saying if I'm broke and useless (as most violent criminals are) what use do I have. None whatsoever. All I could hope for is given time to think about what I've done and perhaps even the tools and resources to do so, again in a confined penal setting. Ok. Say I'm as I said and I steal some guys $5,000 Rolex and in the process shoot someone close to you who tries to defend you, killing them. I'm broke. You can't fine me. I mean, maybe some system or insurance will pay you back, maybe. But then what? You can't bring the person back to life. What good am I if I were to be some sort of servant to you? Aside from the thought of killing you every waking moment or whenever I could get away with it I'd probably just do an all around s***t job. So then what? I'm a useless, talentless criminal. Barely worth the weight I can lift/labor I can provide. Which, was my point, can be replaced by a machine with (at least) 50x efficiency and literally zero risk/cost minus a few cents (ok maybe slightly more today) an hour. Back to the original argument, assuming I'm an a**hole who couldn't care less if you or anyone other than me lives or dies, I don't care about pain. A 5 minute or even day long flogging or beating just makes me angrier and even more of a prick. I'll just take my lickings and learn to be more careful next time I rob, injure, or otherwise wrong someone. Which would probably be someone close to you at that point. Because I don't have time to actually think about what I've done, know how it hurts people (which granted a beating can emulate), and most importantly realize, wow, all this time that's been taken from my life, maybe whatever I stole or whoever I hurt or killed is missing that also. Just something to think about.

I have heard claims that the United States has some of the most incarcerated persons relative to other countries in the world. Is this just a statistical blunder or fact - with considering populations of other countries relative to prison populations? Why is this so? — The Questioning Bookworm

It's a fact.



I think one reason is that American culture wants the legal system to punish people. Punishment as a warning to others. Comes from the history of the country, I guess. The system isn't there to help criminals.

Hence Americans can be in amazement of other prison systems, like here Michael Moore with the Norwegian Prison System:



Of course have to be said that Norway has one example of a highly successful domestic terrorist able to kill a lot of people. I think he is in solitary confinement and treated (obviously) as a public threat.