The system may be very effective at deterring many would-be criminals. Any system will be ineffective against some subset and so this statement would still apply.
Under any system, most crime will be committed by those whom that system does not effectively deter.
So, in order to improve the system and reduce crime, you need to understand those who are currently not effectively deterred.
More of the same is not going to work if you hope to improve outcomes.
In any case, the parent's point seemed pretty empty.
> Who's to say that the current deterred subset of the population won't begin to commit crimes if our style of punishment is changed?
This is what research is for. We may never know what is optimal in an absolute sense, but we can figure out some relative costs/benefits of different approaches to problems and choose our tradeoffs appropriately.
Crimes of passion (i.e. many violent crimes, especially) don't take the system and its deterrents into account.
Because I hope that’s not what you are saying.
We can put significant effort into understanding criminals, for the purposes of both preemptive treatment and reactive rehabilitation, but this is not likely to eradicate crime. What do you suppose we should do with criminals who continue to commit violent or disruptive crimes in perpetuity?
To clarify, I think the system could improve: extremely long sentences may not need to be issued for first time offenders, even if they are very serious. But I don’t think the system can remove permanent sentences if criminals exhibit a clear predilection that is resistent to all known forms of treatment.
Been studied, replicated, and thoroughly tested.
It’s just one option as well.
There are many many more.
About one-third of probationers and parolees fail the terms of their supervision. Over three-quarters of parolees are re-arrested within five years, and over half return to prison. High failure rates for people on probation and parole—whether for new offenses, revocations, or individuals who abscond from supervision—result in increased crime, crowded prisons and jails, and strained public budgets. Indeed, every single one of the seventeen states that have undertaken justice reinvestment since 2010 has found probation or parole revocations to be an important driver of their growing prison populations. And despite a variety of local, state, and Federal initiatives over the last two decades, failure rates for supervised individuals have not meaningfully fallen.
Why Swift Certain and Fair? Because—if the conditions are right—a SCF program can take high-risk individuals in your jurisdiction and substantially reduce their drug use, revocation and re-arrest rates, and the subsequent reliance on incarceration.
Swift: SCF programs deliver a sanction immediately upon detection of a violation, which is critical in changing behavior. Responding swiftly also supports perceptions of the fairness of the program, reinforcing that element of SCF programs.
Certain: The consistency and predictability of punishments make the consequences of bad behavior clear to the offender, reinforcing the need to make better decisions and change behavior. An essential role is played by the clearly-defined behavioral contract with the offender—a tool that has repeatedly been proven to increase perceptions about the certainty of punishment.
Fair: The clear demarcation of the offenders’ new supervision conditions and the opportunity for a fresh start allow the offender to regain their sense of self-control. The contract enhances the perceived fairness of any subsequent punishment; this perception of fairness is further supplemented by the sparing rather than harsh level of punishment upon violation, which additionally limits disruption of employment and other non-criminal routines and relationships.
Drug use is a symptom, the result of another problem. Consider, for example, an undiagnosed personality disorder, or an untreated childhood trauma. Furthermore, what I'm going to mention next isn't helping that either.
> the opportunity for a fresh start
That's just marketing shenanigans. In reality this is rather relative; if one has become a convicted felon, they remain a convicted felon for life. This haunts them till the end of their time. The stigma hampers functionality in society in multiple ways: friendships, and employment first and foremost, but also hypocritically the 2nd amendment (of which I as a European am no proponent of, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander), and the loss of other rights [1]. This society inhibited perfectionism inhibits a defeatist attitude which lures a convicted felon back on the dark path of criminal behaviour on top of things like personality traits or already financial issues. Prisoner series like Orange Is The New Black (though certainly not the first!) beautifully articulate this specific problem, and a myriad other.
The problem is that we see criminals as individuals who cause an issue in society. Instead, we should regard them as individuals who are unable to participate in society and look at it from that angle, by trying to make them participate in society. Getting rid of the defeatist attitude is one way to increase participation in society, looking for medical treatment. Some examples of problem solving procedures (vary on individual basis) are dental procedure (for e.g. former meth addicts), basic insurance, medicine/drugs (methadone for e.g. former heroin addicts), psychological therapy.
I don't want to be negative about the program, though:
> Fair: The clear demarcation of the offenders’ new supervision conditions and the opportunity for a fresh start allow the offender to regain their sense of self-control. The contract enhances the perceived fairness of any subsequent punishment; this perception of fairness is further supplemented by the sparing rather than harsh level of punishment upon violation, which additionally limits disruption of employment and other non-criminal routines and relationships.
This puts the other parts into perspective, making it indeed more fair for the convicted felon (or less unfair, depending on your perspective). That doesn't mean the sentence itself isn't still out of proportion; it already is put out of proportion because there's societal punishments on top of the sentence. Some of which are harmful for rehabilitation.
Incidentally, fixing this might also make things like arrests generally less violent.
[1] https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicte...
I think it is interesting to find such parallels in the design features of such a wide range of systems as courts, prisons, network firewalls, and authentication systems. One can imagine various interpretations in response to these parallels: on one extreme, the designs could demonstrate common cognitive biases of the humans designing them; on the other, the functioning systems could be illustrating natural truths that have been discovered through the evolution of these systems...
What I hope is that those people get to experience prison for inside, and even better, for some BS reason, like the reasons tons of people are in jail for (possession of marijuana, breathing while black, and so on).
So what I "sound like" is quite irrelevant. Except if you believe that people who cherish revenge and punishment of inmates will one day replace the people population based on my wish.
Which kind of implies that one of the goals of prison is/should be to move to a state where they are no longer a danger.
More like the people who designed and operate the system consider everything they do legal and only criminalize the activity of people not like them.
This is true by definition. Anyway, what sort of violent crime do you propose to legalize?
a parent physically abusing their child when they feel like it (bear in mind the parent is also taking care of said child)?
a parent bound by society reduced to moaning at their child (think kids under 10) hoping to control them?
I know which is more perverse.
All forms of hitting children are abusive.
Also, what about when children hit their siblings, or their parents, or their class mates? I don't think that locking these children up is conducive to their welfare either.
I remember being in Texas and seeing on the news how a guy shot another guy in a bar and they were not prosecuting because the person who was shot was not pressing charges, but that's Texas.