Comment by gcd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gcd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> who are dangerous or detrimental to society remain excluded from roaming the streets and causing more trouble

This is not the point of prison. Whites and blacks, for example, use drugs and sell drugs at the same rates. Yet blacks are incarcerated at a much higher rate relative to their representation in the general population.

Throughout the entire criminal justice process, from arrest to prosecution / plea bargaining to sentencing, blacks are discriminated against and receive much harsher treatment than whites.

More accurate would be, 'people who we perceive to be more dangerous'.

The number of federal and state non-violent drug offenders have increased by 750% and 1100% respectively since 1980. Do you really think that these people are so dangerous?

On top of this, a good portion of felony convictions are erroneous, and recidivism rates are near 67%, meaning our prisons are actively creating criminals.

Regardless, I was asking the question to try and inspire thought about what prison should be. I should have been more clear.

Strawman reply. I was commenting about the key goal of prison in the first place, and you are replying as if I was inferring that who goes to prison was fair - that is not at all the point I raised.

Before prison, the common practice in antiquity was to exile people. Which has the exact same effect as prison: to remove people from everyday society. That's why the primary goal of prison is to achieve the same thing: removal of individuals who cause harm (whether they are actually doing harm is a different discussion).

If you want to reeducate people, I'm not sure prison is the right place to do so.

> Strawman reply. I was commenting about the key goal of prison in the first place

Before crying straw man (by the way, that's a great way to stifle the discussion), remember that you first said: "Prison exists to ensure ...". There is quite a difference in meaning between that and what you are talking about here - my response was hardly a strawman if you interpret "Prison exists ..." in a certain way.

> Prison exists to ensure the people who are dangerous or detrimental to society remain excluded from roaming in the streets and causing more trouble

Yeah, and this has always been the primary goal of Prison. Prisons were never made to be places to reeducate people. It was always, at the beginning, seen as both a practical "exile" form society and a form of punishment. And I maintain that your reply was indeed a strawman, because it was not at all answering to the point I raised, no matter how you look at it, there was no implication that Prison was fair in any way in my comment.

> And I maintain that your reply was indeed a strawman, because it was not at all answering to the point I raised, no matter how you look at it

No matter how you look at it. When I first read your sentence, I unintentionally read what you said differently than what you intended. If ambiguity in language allows for many interpretations of a statement, responding to one instead of the other is not a strawman.

Again, regardless, the purpose of my question was not about what prison was originally intended to be but instead what it's purpose should be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com