Hacker News Reader

Comment by rthomas6 | Hacker News Reader

Does this view not presuppose that the exhibitors of the anti-social behavior cannot be fixed or remade into useful members of society? If you believe that, fine, but if you think that some could be reformed, why is that not worth the money? "Reform", in my mind, has nothing to do with pampering. It could be even more torturous than now...For example A Clockwork Orange. Not that I'm advocating that.

Does this view also not presuppose that all prisoners have exhibited anti-social behavior? I think we can both say that this is not the case. Although, prisons tend to somewhat separate the two populations.

View on HN

I suppose that good people can make a[singular and non-violent] mistake or error in judgement which can run them a foul of the law. These people don't require reform. They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on.

I also suppose that others are more habitually and fundamentally anti-social. These people are not worth the effort of trying to 'save'. The brains have literally been wired for this behavior[over the course of many years]. They must be removed from society.

There are also those somewhere in between natural-born killer and 'busted for pot'. These people are responsible for their own personal choices. If they keep making bad choices of their own volition I have no compassion for them. [I say this from first hand experience dealing with a close relative who is a lifelong fuck-up.]

You are making a lot of assumptions, which seem taylored to bolster a particular worldview, rather than be based in fact. In particular, you assume

1. People differ vastly in their innate ability to follow societal rules.

2. The justice system is able to distinguish between people who make simple mistakes, and people who are unable to follow society rules.

3. The above is a big factor in sentencing.

While there is evidence that some aspects of behavior are innate, there is also a huge literature linking the environment a person is raised in, and their tendency towards crime. Furthermore, sentencing is generally extremely inconsistent by any standards, so it is very unlikely that sentencing would fit your criteria for being lenient to the right people. Finally, it's hard to think of sentencing criteria that fit the criteria you propose, and are also objective.

I dont necessarily agree with your moral standpoints however the statement "They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on.", this is not typically the case... there are plenty of people who receive light sentences and plenty who get the book thrown at them for non violent first time offenses

If people can be changed then they will change given the right incentives, which can be achieve simply by making prison sufficiently harsh and long enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com