Quote :

"Additionally, going back to what I said before - as the punishment for every crime, no matter how small, becomes the death penalty, what do you think will happen? No one will answer this because they will be wrong. Crime almost entirely disappears. This is what Death Note argues and not a single rational person opposes."

Incorrect. You're arguing deterrence theory here. Many criminals don't intend to get caught, which means they don't always weigh the potential outcomes (in this case, the death penalty) when calculating the risk of their behavior.

5/30/2011 1:23:55 PM

Quote :

"That is based on the idea that you have the ability to identify if someone's environment is a crime-prone one or not."

Quote :

"I, however, can clearly identify societies with huge crime rates"

I could easily find lots of individuals from these societies that do not embrace criminality. You say your argument has nothing to do with identifying crime prone societies and then use as your only bit of evidence (for whatever it is you're arguing) the existence of crime prone societies.

The death penalty argument would also seem to be exploded by the existence of many individuals in many societies who do in fact commit crimes that are punishable by death. But even if there weren't, all you've done is shown that people usually consider risks and rewards. That doesn't change the fact that there will always be people who also consider things like ethics.

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

5/30/2011 1:24:20 PM

Quote :

"But even if there weren't, all you've done is shown that people usually consider risks and rewards. That doesn't change the fact that there will always be people who also consider things like ethics."

Ethics are nothing more than part of the equation. If someone has strong moral position, they may still commit crimes contrary to their values due to the fact that the other side of the equation is weighted so heavily.

Deterrents can still be said to be part of one's environment, although it is more natural to say that one's upbringing affects their values.

Quote :

"You say your argument has nothing to do with identifying crime prone societies and then use as your only bit of evidence (for whatever it is you're arguing) the existence of crime prone societies. "

Well, you have the claims right. I've stated over and over again what it is I'm arguing so I don't understand why you have problems with that part. Crime isn't just a little different from place to place, it is a LOT different from place to place. Other people continue to argue that "X makes people do Y" or "person didn't have X and did Y so crime isn't a product of environment".

The simple fact that place almost entirely determines the risk of crime shows very clearly an individual commits crime as a result of their environment which includes the things I've mentioned above.

Quote :

"The death penalty argument would also seem to be exploded by the existence of many individuals in many societies who do in fact commit crimes that are punishable by death."

You are thoroughly wrong on this point. In order to argue this point, we need to consider how far or close any given society is from hosting a perfect environment to deter crime.

Those nations with very strict laws do not fit the world described in Death Note because the deterrents are not absolute (I don't know of a single country where death penalty is punishment for everything) and the enforcement is not perfect either. It is correct that people will risk their life in committing a crime. They will not do it at all if death is certain (except suicide).

However, absurdly strict nations do not lead the world in having the lowest crime rate. Nations like Iceland do, which is not because of strong deterrent but (you guessed it) environment. In fact, between 2006 and 2008 there were 2 homicides in that nation of 300,000 people. If you applied the rates of many other nations, you will easily find expected values in the 10s of 1000s. You would look at this and say that the 2 cases disprove the idea that environment is what causes crime? What difference between nations would be sufficient to prove to you that crime does not just come from "bad apples"? To me, this is way more than enough. Iceland does not constitute controlled conditions and it follows that a place (filled with people) can have even less crime, to the point that we're talking about virtually zero crime.

But I'm not prescribing a solution to the world's problems. You can give plenty of reasons why people in Iceland almost never murder people, but you don't know what the real combination of factors are and neither do I. My argument does not require being all-knowing. It is a practical observation about the way things are and the implications it should have on our perception human nature.

[Edited on May 30, 2011 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/30/2011 2:52:22 PM

I didn't read this thread but i agree with prison for murderers but for drugs is straight crazy.Id rather us imprison people who got illegally rich than prison people for smoking with the only $5 they've got.

5/30/2011 11:32:11 PM

Right. I think it's hard to understate how much drug prohibition is actually to blame for a lot of society's problems. Overcrowded prisons are just one area - the crime associated with the drug trade, by itself, is the best justification to end prohibition. Milton Friedman talks about it here, and I think he makes a good argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY&feature=player_embedded#at=356

5/31/2011 1:37:20 AM

lol, i knew this thread wasn't about recidivism or a debate about the purpose of prison.

5/31/2011 9:04:01 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?_r=2&ref=us

Quote :

" Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings PHOENIX — The conviction that private prisons save money helped drive more than 30 states to turn to them for housing inmates. But Arizona shows that popular wisdom might be wrong: Data there suggest that privately operated prisons can cost more to operate than state-run prisons — even though they often steer clear of the sickest, costliest inmates. "

Quote :

"The research, by the Arizona Department of Corrections, also reveals a murky aspect of private prisons that helps them appear less expensive: They often house only relatively healthy inmates. “It’s cherry-picking,” said State Representative Chad Campbell, leader of the House Democrats. “They leave the most expensive prisoners with taxpayers and take the easy prisoners.” In the 1980s, soaring violent crime, tougher sentencing and overcrowding led lawmakers to use private prisons to expand. Then, as now, privatization advocates argued that corporations were more efficient. Over time, most states signed contracts, one of the largest transfers of state functions to private industry."

Quote :

"Competing studies — some financed by the prison industry — have argued over claims of savings. But when a University of Utah team including Mr. Van Vleet reviewed years of research, it concluded in 2007 that “cost savings from privatizing prisons are not guaranteed and appear minimal.”"

Quote :

"Five of eight private prisons serving Arizona did not accept inmates with “limited physical capacity and stamina” or severe physical illness or chronic conditions, according to the state’s analysis, issued last month. None took inmates with “high need” mental health conditions. Some inmates who became sick were “returned to state prisons due to an increase of their medical scores that exceeds contractual exclusions.” “Unlike the private contractors,” the analysis said, the state “is required to provide medical and mental health services to inmates regardless of the severity of their condition.” Medical costs averaged up to $2.44 a day more for state inmates, a third higher than private prisons."

5/31/2011 9:59:49 AM

Silly rbrthwrd, those privately run prisons aren't TRULY privately run and in a real free market would be bastions of freedom and efficiency.

5/31/2011 10:54:28 AM

explain how it is not truly private and what would need to change to make it so

5/31/2011 11:03:28 AM

I was just beating destroyer to the punch....

5/31/2011 11:18:24 AM

ah

5/31/2011 11:19:29 AM

Private prisons, if accompanied by public police, courts, investigators, et cetera, would probably not yield much of a benefit. I'm not even sure if they'd be viable at all, as the entire infrastructure that supports the prison is still bureaucratic in nature, and does not feel the squeeze of competitive market forces.

With that said, those articles argue that the prisons are not more cost effective, which was not really the point I was making. The point was that prisoners would be treated better under a free market system, which they would be. I suspect the cost would be lower as well, as you'd have many competitors in the market driving down prices.

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 12:08 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2011 11:45:11 AM

you said

Quote :

" those articles argue that the prisons are not more cost effective, which was not really the point I was making."

and then directly under it said

Quote :

" I suspect the cost would be lower as well, as you'd have many competitors in the market driving down prices."

5/31/2011 11:57:51 AM

Correct. My original argument was not that private prisons would be cheaper, it was that public prisons have no incentive to treat their prisoners like human beings. Private prisons would likely be cheaper in real terms since more competition would exist, but that's a separate argument.

5/31/2011 12:07:27 PM

what incentive do private prisons have to treat inmates well that municipal, state, or federal facilities do not?

and if human rights issues are your concern, how about the conflict of interest when determining parole and early release based on good behavior? private prisons keep prisoners longer because they don't get paid if they release them.

5/31/2011 1:26:47 PM

Quote :

"what incentive do private prisons have to treat inmates well that municipal, state, or federal facilities do not?"

"Under a private, free market [stateless] system where many or most prisoners were covered under a form of insurance, prisons would be held liable for any harm caused to prisoners while incarcerated. The business model for prisons, then, would be to minimize harm to prisoners while ensuring that they remained in prison."

Quote :

"and if human rights issues are your concern, how about the conflict of interest when determining parole and early release based on good behavior? private prisons keep prisoners longer because they don't get paid if they release them."

Private prisons are not the ones determining how long prisoners stay. Private, third party arbitrators would be the ones determining the duration of incarceration; private prisons are facilities, nothing more.

The kinds of prisons you're thinking of are for-profit prisons contained with a public system. I'm suggesting we dispense of the public system and the state altogether. I agree that for-profit prisons, if implemented today with the current set of laws, would not be better. It would just give the state more room to incarcerate people, and another chance to pick winners and losers.

Quote :

"lol, i knew this thread wasn't about recidivism or a debate about the purpose of prison."

The reasons that we're putting people in prisons, and the problems that we see in prisons, are linked. Bad laws result in communities without strong families, which results in a long-term poverty and delinquency.

[Edited on May 31, 2011 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2011 1:32:55 PM

Quote :

"Private prisons are not the ones determining how long prisoners stay. Private, third party arbitrators would be the ones determining the duration of incarceration; private prisons are facilities, nothing more."

but who writes the reports that they use, the private prisons. this trend is recognizable now, with more inmates being written up and more releases denied in private prisons.

Quote :

" Under a private, free market [stateless] system"

as long as you realize that, since we are not a stateless society, and the state is issuing punishment as the voice of the people, private prisons are not the best option, i am okay with your statement.

5/31/2011 2:08:12 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/incarcerated-pennsylvanians-now-have-to-pay-150-to-read-we-should-all-be-outraged/2018/10/11/51f548b8-cbd9-11e8-a85c-0bbe30c19e8f_story.html

Quote :

"Every year, thousands of people in Pennsylvania prisons write directly to nonprofit organizations such as the one I co-chair with a request for reading material, which we then send to them at no cost. This free access to books has dramatically improved the lives of incarcerated individuals, offering immense emotional and mental relief as well as a key source of rehabilitation. But as of last month, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) has decided to make such rehabilitation much harder. Going forward, books and publications, including legal primers and prison newsletters, cannot be sent directly to incarcerated Pennsylvanians. Instead, if they want access to a book, they must first come up with $147 to purchase a tablet and then pay a private company for electronic versions of their reading material — but only if it’s available among the 8,500 titles offered to them through this new e-book system. In case you forgot: Incarcerated people are paid less than $1 per hour, and the criminal-justice system disproportionately locks up low-income individuals. Adding insult to injury, most of the e-books available to them for purchase would be available free from Project Gutenberg. And nonpublic domain books in Pennsylvania’s e-book system are more expensive than on other e-book markets."

10/12/2018 3:10:38 PM