I think it's fine to "teach prisoners coding" as along as the people involved are aware that to even get to that point, how much BASIC education has to be re-done or done for the first time. Moreover, things like resumes, job hunting, and relating to people in a work environment is something that these folks need to learn and practice. Most have never done that. I've not taught in prisons, but have done ABE (Adult Basic Ed, which is all but required for folks to get through before they can even start a GRE program, and which many parolees are required to enroll in).
In other words, "learning to code" is great, but instruction for literacy, numeracy, and socialization HAVE TO OCCUR before that's even considered, otherwise it's just a cruel pipe-dream.
We so lucky, most of us, to have grown up in an environment where learning achievement is expected and supported by responsible adults. Most of the incarcerated folks have lived a level of depravation that we can't even imagine.
Who? Twitter idiots?
If you're going to take the weakest of strawman arguments for the opposing side, you're not going to get very far in your thinking.
There are plenty of ideas that aren't politically risky that don't get implemented, that would positively affect criminals and non-criminals alike - what's your explanation of such phenomena?
Blaming voters for the deeds of politicians has got to be one of the weakest strawmans I've heard in a while. It is the job of the politicians, domain experts and the media to present viable options for the populace to choose from. If the option chosen is shit, it isn't the person working 9-5 and raising a family that was asked to choose who is at fault, I hope that much is obvious.
When people are in prison and school becomes something that can be taken away, it looks more like a privilege.
Human brains are weird.
I don't think it's that weird: it just means that the judgement is relative.
That is not to say that prisons should be blind to the fact that inmates will eventually be released. There are plenty of people who have committed no crime, but go hungry. Where is their free lunch?
Justice is a deep concept - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/ is an overview, and it's not short - but on plain sight, I'd say that since it is the public, through the medium of government, that enforces justice, it should do so with a utilitarian view.
Society has a vital interest in reintegrating people who have been punished, so that they don't fall back into a life of crime as the only life available to them. If justice is mostly retribution, then society is not well served. Even further, society can profit from the valuable contributions of people who've learned the error of their ways.
It seems right to me. In my opinion, justice comes from the concept of reciprocity. In other words, if someone does bad, it is just that bad is done to them (retribution). The reverse is also true: it is just that good things occur to people who do good deeds.
> Justice is a deep concept - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/ is an overview, and it's not short - but on plain sight, I'd say that the fact that it is the public, through the medium of government, that enforces justice, it should do so with a utilitarian view.
It's wrong to write as if this is a closed question. There are plenty of philosophers who aren't utilitarians and who see justice grounded elsewhere than "whatever I think will be good for society".
The concept of retribution as justice goes far back beyond medieval, to at least the Bronze Age (see Hammurabi).
In addition, it seems a common component across cultures. The utilitarian view is by no means nearly as universal.
Here is a modern example: every few years you hear about some former Nazi Concentration Camp guard that was arrested. From a utilitarian point of view it is completely useless. The old guard is never ever going to take part in anything like that again. However, from a justice as retribution for misdeeds, it make perfect sense.
Punishment achieves fairness and deterrence.
So I wouldn't call them dark.
Retribution had a place - in Babylonian times, when eye for an eye was the rule. Things have moved on.
If you're interested in a defense of retributive justice, read Kant:
> Punishment by a court can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society. Punishment can only be inflicted in response to a crime committed, i.e., retributive justice only. A human being ought never to be treated merely as a means to an end as all human beings have an innate personality even thought they may be condemned to lose their civil personality. The law of punishment is a categorical imperative, and woe to him who crawls through the windings of eudaemonism in order to discover something that releases the criminal from punishment or even reduces its amount by the advantage it promises, in accordance with the pharisaical saying, “It is better for one man to die than for an entire people to perish.” For if justice goes, then so does the value of human beings. However, what if a proposal comes forwards to preserve the life of a criminal sentenced to death in exchange for allowing dangerous experiments to be performed, so that physicians can learn something of benefit to the commonwealth? A court would reject with contempt such a proposal form a medical college, for justice ceases to be justice if it can be bought for any price whatsoever.
An anecdote that frames my thinking: the most recent crime I've suffered was when I've been assaulted on the street - bikejacked, in fact, pulled off my motorcycle at a stop light by one hoodlum, kicked in the head (though helmeted), while another rode off on my bike. In the moment, there's anger at the perpetrators. But more than that, I feel pity; pity that their lives are so empty that the only way they see to get their kicks is to do this kind of thing.
They should suffer consequences (i.e. a deterrent), sure, but I don't really want retribution. Revenge wouldn't have brought back my bike (I'd put months of work into that bike, getting it back on the road, but when the bike was recovered it had been crashed into a parked car). It certainly wouldn't have made me feel safer on the road; if anything, it would have made the us (well paid) vs them (aimless, hopeless poor youth) dichotomy worse, not better.
As it turned out, the London police are much worse than the hoodlums. Didn't get a line-up of faces until more than 4 months after the fact, long after any hope of remembering anything. I have a lot more anger at the police than I do at those hoodlums.
I want that kind of crime to no longer be a risk. That requires a systematic solution, not a point fix of retribution, which I don't want - I don't and didn't want those kids' lives ruined. They'll just do even worse things.
I can imagine different crimes where retribution and revenge might play a larger part in the emotions of the victim. I think those crimes are a small minority of total crime, and even then justice is and needs to be rational, not emotional. Revenge, as a reaction, overreacts. Justice needs to be balanced. So I'm not sure it can be a principal component even for that minority of crime.
Turn the other cheek; violence begets violence; etc. But some people seem to use the word "justice" and mean "revenge".
Food for thought, but this is only true if we release them. For most of history, we simply executed criminals.
In most of the world, that's still the case (thieves without hands etc).
Without making a moral judgment on what's right or wrong, if most societies evolved that way, it probably means it's conducive to the long-term health and survival of societies. Survivorship bias and all that.
Um... what? This is borderline advocating for all sentences be for life.
If a sentence is given and served, the convicted deserve a chance at living. The US has a terrifying and awful fetish for punishing lower/middle-class folks who commit some of the pettiest of crimes, many of which struggle to re-integrate with society if/when they're released and therefore continue to serve a sentence long after they're no longer in prison. Compared with, for example, a vast majority of white-collar crime that often has victims an order of magnitude or two greater than most petty crime.
> Should the assaulted be happy with the fact that the inmate will get a job?
YES, everyone should be happy if ex-felons are able to find work after leaving prison. Otherwise, they just go back their previous behaviors (eg ~80% recidivism). If they can't get work, that's effectively a "life sentence".
I do not think you understood my original comment, since you keep quoting that sentence only. Where is the restitution to the aggrieved party? The assaulted, the robbed, the beaten, the raped? You pay for what you do, and if your enterprise is criminal, you pay in time behind bars. Personal responsibility. Why would anyone want to hire a wife-beater? There are millions of upstanding citizens out of work ...
Punishing those who commit crime demonstrably does little to nothing to dissuade them from future crime. Given an understanding of the reasons why many people commit crimes makes this obvious: by taking angry people without hope, and giving them more reasons to be angry and even less hope, we end up with an incredibly high recidivism rate. Meanwhile, harshly punishing those who've committed crimes usually doesn't make the victims of those crimes feel better, either.
So if it's not benefitting victims, and making re-offense more likely, why do we do it? So third parties can feel a sense of self-righteousness that they call "justice?" That seems to be the primary reason!
Sometimes people in dire straits do bad things, and hurt others. Punishment is reasonable, but objectively, rehabilitation is also needed. Restitution to victims, and victim statements, also help. We can look around the world and see objectively that there are many ways to do this better than we're doing, by any measure. It's both more humane, and more effective.
This would be without even touching any “wife-beater,” rapist or murderer.
There are a lot of people unnecessarily locked up for absurd sentences compared to the crime who absolutely deserve another chance at society. We should actively want that. It’s a net good for society and it happens to be a lot less expensive, too.
Criminal law is about wrongs against the state. In regards to payment for restitution, how is the state being restored by somebody rotting in jail?
What sort of payment is this that the state may end up even poorer than before? In fact, if serving in prison is payment, then I'd say it's the state that's paying for the prison and all the harms which follow.
If the state should find itself awfully harmed from its own criminal justice policy, from where shall the state seek remedy?
Heck yeah! If civil penalties have been assessed, how else are they going to get paid?
Crazy how most Americans think even the smallest crime should mean life in prison plus anal rape
> I think that retribution, which is of course the principal component of justice, is a key part of prisons.
No amount of retribution will ever be enough. The concept of making things right is a delusion that parents infect their children with.
However, the most effective way to inflict retribution is to teach an individual the meaning of their actions and have them live with the guilt of those actions. Another word for that is rehabilitation.
American prisons are based on childish like-for-like retribution (your limited someone's rights, you get your rights limited). It didn't work when I was 8, so why would it work for an adult? All that we achieve is sending people to crime college, where fellow inmates further numb moral fiber and empathy, then release graduated criminals back into the wild. That's certainly one way to make sure that there is always demand for retribution.
It was not until now that I came to realize that everyone in American prisons are actually there for assault. The mind reels.
I assumed that you did not actually believe that all criminals in America had assaulted someone, but if you did not believe it then arguing for the punishment of people who did not commit violent acts (by making it more difficult for them to get jobs when released) seems far worse than if you just did believe a ridiculous thing.
And really by using in your argument an emotional hypothetical about the assaulted to argue for denying something to people who have not committed assault it becomes difficult to know exactly how to take it.
The argument is hard to take seriously if you don't really believe it is true for all criminals, and it is difficult to believe you think it is true for all criminals.
Perhaps to nuance the discussion a bit, the majority of people in state prisons in the US are there for violent offenses, and state prisons hold a majority of all prisoners. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
I said that punishment is a necessary part of prison, it is the main thing of justice. You may or may not agree with that position, but unless you are willing to reply to me on a good faith basis maybe you just shouldn't. The HN guidelines say >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
It is not sort of reasonable that you think "some part of me"(what do you mean by that?) argues for it, because I never wrote it. If you or other people did not understand some part of my original comment, ask for a clarification instead of what has happened in these comment chains.
One of the arguments that Foucault makes in Discipline and Punish is that prisons, by virtue of hiding the retribution from public view, can perform nearly arbitrarily heinous retributions on people. When we tore people apart in the street as punishment it was public and could provoke outrage. Now basically nobody knows what happens inside prisons.
That ain't necessarily so, and not every penal system has that philosophy. If prisons turn out people who are unemployable, they will simply keep doing whatever they can do to make a living. If lawful society doesn't take them, someone else will. Justice has to work at the societal level.
(I think prison probably is fucking people up more, but a mere citation of high recidivism rate isn’t evidence of that to me, given the prior.)
One way to see whether 87% is high or low might be to compare it to the rate in other countries. We seems to be near the top of that list, but not alone there.
Jail or prison itself may or may not drive people toward more crime, but the difficult in finding housing or a job with a criminal record certainly does a lot to kill hope.
Would the assaulted be happier having to work to support the attacker for the rest of their life?
(I’m not claiming that it’s as many as we have incarcerated now, but it’s patently not “zero people”.)
Yes, nobody should go hungry. Not in prison, not out of prison, nowhere.
And by a free lunch, I meant the idiomatic expression.
Idiomatically, I'm also in favor of every person, inside or outside of prison, getting the education they need in a trade that suits them.
Our society would benefit enormously, far beyond the cost of providing the education. So again, free lunches for all! Literally and metaphorically!
Yes.
In my humble opinion, we have a magical wishful thinking (should this, should that) mentality towards the way the world works, when we should have an evidence based, rational approach instead.
In my humble opinion, we have a vengeance and retribution mentality towards prisons in this country, when we should have a rehabilitation and re-integration focus.