The End of Prison Visitation in America

[grumbler]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.

Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?

[dps]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.

Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?

Of course not.  Why should it?  That's not the point of it.

[grumbler]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.

Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?

Of course not.  Why should it?  That's not the point of it.

What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again?  Just to increase the overall level of human misery?

[dps]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.

Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?

Of course not.  Why should it?  That's not the point of it.

What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again?  Just to increase the overall level of human misery?

Look up "punitive" in a dictionary.

[grumbler]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.

Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?

Of course not.  Why should it?  That's not the point of it.

What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again?  Just to increase the overall level of human misery?

Look up "punitive" in a dictionary.

So the purpose of punishment is to be punitive?  How perfectly circular.

[Tonitrus]

The debate on "rehabilitation" vs. "punishment" is certainly a good one. 

If ones gives a damn about recidivism, taking someone from a crappy/impoverished situation, rolling them through a crappy prison system, and then back into said situation/neighborhood...you almost might as well not even bother.

I dunno if my view on the whole issue is weird...but while I think that the overall correction/penal system is flawed, and should, on the whole, be more "humane"...I also think that perhaps capital punishment is not used enough.  There are plenty of people in prison who will never be able to be "corrected", and also definitely manage to go outside the bounds of the "every life is precious" idea (though that idea is so subjective, I'd have to admit not being able to argue against it either).  Even in strict logical terms, what is the point of incarcerating someone for their entire life instead of execution?  It sometimes seems that it is either being overly merciful, or overly cruel.

On the whole, I am not sure how we treat corrections (e.g., prisons and incarceration), is the best way to rehabilitate people...it just seems to be society's default option for lack of any better ideas, and continues mostly on societal inertia.  Thus, perhaps the entire way we look at punishment of crime needs to change.  That, or it cannot be changed.

All that rambling being said, I don't pretend to have a great idea to solve it, or a firm stand on any of it...simply because I don't know enough.  Except that what we're doing right now isn't really working.

[Berkut]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.

Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?

Of course not.  Why should it?  That's not the point of it.

What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again?  Just to increase the overall level of human misery?

I think the correct answer for those who support the punitive part of it is to convince others to not engage in crime to begin with - to make it clear that the risks involved will make most people simply not attempt to engage in crime at all.

Those who engage in it anyway are "punished" not because there is an expectation that this will convince them not to repeat (although I suppose that is a desired side effect at the least) but rather to show the population at large that there really is a good chance you will be punished, and hence should include that in your calculus. The people who have already chosen to ignore that consequence are not surprisingly highly likely to repeat - we've already selected for people for whom the threat of punishment was inadequate.

The problem with THIS argument in the context of dps favoring of this over rehabilitation is that he demands some data to justify the efficacy of rehabilitation, some measured reduction in recidivism. But there isn't any such measure around the effectiveness of the punitive threat either. I suspect it does work, but to what degree seems very hard to measure. I suspect that it certainly doesn't work nearly as well as the fire and brimstone law and order crowd would like to believe though....

[Barrister]

(I'd be more in favor of focusing on rehabilitation if I thought that there was a way to do so that was demonstrably effective).

What sort of evidence would convince you?

Fair question.  I'm not sure;   90% reduction in recidivism, maybe.

Does focusing on punishment meet that threshold?

Of course not.  Why should it?  That's not the point of it.

What is the point of it, if not to make ex-cons afraid to engage in crime again?  Just to increase the overall level of human misery?

Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:

-It denounces unlawful conduct.  It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender.  Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society.  This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation.  While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.

[The Brain]

Do you think a person who kills the rest of humanity should be punished?

[Capetan Mihali]

Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:

-It denounces unlawful conduct.  It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender.  Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society.  This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation.  While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.

Not to single you out BB, since I think you've done a good job explicating the traditional Criminal Law rationale for incarceration, but this concept in particular drives me crazy.  Are the other prisoners not human beings who can be the victims of crimes?  Greater society really doesn't tend to give a damn about all the inmate victimized at the hands of other inmates and guards.  By imprisoning him, you are just giving the offender a smaller population to victimize, is how that should really read.

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, concentrating him into a population statistically more likely to victimize him.

[The Brain]

Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:

-It denounces unlawful conduct.  It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender.  Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society.  This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation.  While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.

Not to single you out BB, since I think you've done a good job explicating the traditional Criminal Law rationale for incarceration, but this concept in particular drives me crazy.  Are the other prisoners not human beings who can be the victims of crimes?  Greater society really doesn't tend to give a damn about all the inmate victimized at the hands of other inmates and guards.  By imprisoning him, you are just giving the offender a smaller population to victimize, is how that should really read.

I've seen Oz. Murder in prison means some member of staff looks concerned and either nothing at all happens and it's instantly forgotten or someone gets the chair within a few weeks.

[Malthus]

Here's the traditional answer as to the purpose of imprisonment:

-It denounces unlawful conduct.  It sends a message to the broader community that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
-It deters the offender.  Hopefully the offender doesn't want to return to prison, so changes his behaviour.
-It separates the offender from society.  This person can't commit further crimes while locked up.
-It allows for rehabilitation.  While the offender is imprisoned you can direct them to take counselling or classes which will help them stay out of trouble upon release.

One major reason for imprisonment not often explicitly mentioned: to prevent the victims of crime (or their families) from engaging in "self-help" remedies, leading to a cycle of revenge.

[Capetan Mihali]

Well, concentrating him into a population statistically more likely to victimize him.

It depends very heavily on the offense of conviction and the history of previous incarceration, if any. 

But even long-timers get stabbed all the time over not paying up the commissary Cheez-Its they wagered in a game of spades, or something equally stupid.

[Jacob]

I think the correct answer for those who support the punitive part of it is to convince others to not engage in crime to begin with - to make it clear that the risks involved will make most people simply not attempt to engage in crime at all.

Those who engage in it anyway are "punished" not because there is an expectation that this will convince them not to repeat (although I suppose that is a desired side effect at the least) but rather to show the population at large that there really is a good chance you will be punished, and hence should include that in your calculus. The people who have already chosen to ignore that consequence are not surprisingly highly likely to repeat - we've already selected for people for whom the threat of punishment was inadequate.

The problem with THIS argument in the context of dps favoring of this over rehabilitation is that he demands some data to justify the efficacy of rehabilitation, some measured reduction in recidivism. But there isn't any such measure around the effectiveness of the punitive threat either. I suspect it does work, but to what degree seems very hard to measure. I suspect that it certainly doesn't work nearly as well as the fire and brimstone law and order crowd would like to believe though....

As I understand it, there is little correlation between the severity of the punishment and discouraging crime; people inclined to break the law rarely consider the scale of the punishment they'll receive *if* they're caught.

What, apparently, does influence it is the perceived likelihood of being caught and the speed and efficacy of determining and applying the punishment.