From what I understand, it’s the risk of being punished that is correlated with deterrence, rather than the severity of the punishment.
A 100% chance of getting a 5-year sentence for committing a crime is a much better deterrent than a 20% chance of a life (or death) sentence.
To use a somewhat outdated analogy: we sit up straight in class because we flinch at the idea of the sting of the ruler. We don’t sit any straighter based on how long our hand aches afterwards.
OK, that makes sense.
Well, the link doesn’t really corroborate that specific assertion…according to one specific researcher, California’s 3-strikes law didn’t decrease the rate of violent crime, but there are lots of (more plausible) explanations for why that would be besides the notion that threat of punishment has no deterrent effect whatsoever. (I would guess that the vast majority of violent crimes are crimes of passion, where people do not think through the consequences, in which case it’s expected that the change in sentencing would have little deterrent effect.)
That’s why I proposed the thought experiment: what if all prison and capital sentences were stricken from the law and sentencing guidelines tomorrow? It seems likely to me that with no threat of punishment, a lot of people would engage in a lot more crime. I think I need more than this one tangentially related study to drastically change my appraisal of human nature enough to change my thinking about this.
Sociopath is a word that has a definition and it is okay to use it. No need to gatekeep.
I’m not sure what that would look like… but Norway’s prisons have no locks or guards… and they have low crime rates and low recidivism rates. But then they also have “free” healthcare and schooling and social programs. So, I think, with America the way it is, if you did away with the entire criminal justice system then yes, you’d see a hella lot more crime.
But for countries that do not have the socio-economic extremes America does… you would not?
I always think prison and sentancing is a big like putting the cart before the horse. If you truly want to decrease crime you need to address poverty, mental health, access to resources, education, social networks, health care, structural racism and sexism, which are all really really hard issues to tackle. I guess prisons are easier?
Great points.
I think it actually has to do more with the “monopoly on violence” concept and the psychology of victims. Some people are more prone to obsessing about revenge (though in context it might be called “justice”) and if the state doesn’t do anything to the perpetrator, then the victim or those close to the victim might take matters into their own hands and thereby undermine the rule of law.
So yeah, I agree it’s psychological/cultural, and I think you’ve nicely addressed the “supply side” issues where most criminality derives from socioeconomic conditions. But I think there’s also a “demand” side where some people/cultures are more geared to demanding the authorities do something, damn it!
This is also a good example of citing human nature when really it probably has more to do with culture. This is something I criticize sometimes when I see other people doing it, so I feel a little embarrassed having done the same thing myself.
not all convicts are in an open prison** and are allowed to e.g. work and only sleep in the prison cell. but this is not the default and mostly part of the rehabilitation plan at the end of the prison term.
your video is about one experimental facility, and while I think this is a Good Thing not all prisons have “no locks or guards”.
Norway’s system is focussed on resocialisation, though. see Breivik’s conditions of detention, probably not even thinkable within the US prison complex.
* started to reply before you edited your post
** as approach common in Europe, the Marshall Project had a series of articles about German prisons, in a slightly less excited style compared to Moore : )
Thanks for the clarifications.
6 posts were split to a new topic: Eugenics?
At 4:25 he goes to a maximum security facility.
And it has a recording studio. Each inmate has a private room and their own bathroom.
So… yes, locks, but still a vastly different place with a focus on rehab.
Hah that sounds about right. I’d have been young enough when I read it to be very taken with the idea. They’re also not clear on how it’s enforced … just ask me how easy it is for a dude to avoid paying child support for 15+ years.
Speaking as an actual human woman who has reproduced, I can tell you I made the decision based on lust and stupid hormones.
is it a useful thought experiment or isn’t it more suitable to block a discussion about a prison system? it reminds me of the all-or-nothing reasoning line used in arguments about gun regulations: no grey scales, the only thinkable next step is a complete ban.
It’s bizarre to me, that one person says, “crime”, and suddenly the response is “prison”.
Americans have a rich vocabulary for describing criminal acts. Everything from, “driving while black”, to, “spitting on the sidewalk”.
Yet, according to the article, there’s a huge subset of men who rape, who have convinced themselves that it’s not actually a crime. With all the continuous stream of infotainment regarding true-life criminal stories, its a glaring ommission. We’re being sold a lurid story of violent crime on the rise (when the opposite is true) but rape as a violent crime somehow stays firmly in the blind spot.
No, this is not about the efficacy of prison. That’s exactly the kind of red herring people bring up when they don’t want to talk about rape as being a problem.
When I first started hearing the phrase, “rape culture” I thought it a strident hyperbole. And it’s not a phrase that helps change anyone’s mind. But the deeper this country sinks, the more apt this term becomes.
If raping someone had the social stigma of even just a parking ticket, fewer men would rape.
I don’t think it’s that. I think they know it’s a crime, but they have defined “rape” in their heads to mean “a stranger leaps out of the bushes and grabs a woman for the purpose of sex”. Things like “too drunk to say no” or “she was making out with me so she must have wanted to” or “I bought dinner and pressured her about it until she gave in” don’t register as being that crime.
These are the same sorts of people who think men cannot be raped by women, because men are “always” up for sex.
It’s not a clinical term, though, and as such it’s use when talking about issues relating to mental health etc. is limited and unhelpful. Whyn’t talk about demonic possession?
Because in one case, a demon-possessed person has no agency. A sociopath does, they just don’t give a shit about other people.
Idk what that means though, other than “bad person,” which is vague and nebulous. And as a clinician I can tell you there are better, more clinical terms, but even civilians know this, you indeed know this.
Look up clinomorphism, and think for a minute, maybe you’ll have something more to add? Something useful?
I think that short of murder, rape is the most violent crime: profound physical and psychological damage that further extends to harm whole families, relationships, and lives; why shouldn’t rapists be viewed and judged in ways commensurate with the crime?
I speak vernacular, my specialties lie in entirely useless fields like Chess. An Aspie has no idea how other people think or react - very poor at reading social cues. An asshole can read cues just fine and chooses to do it anyway. I have no more specific term than sociopath to describe such an individual. Maybe you as a clinician can contribute a more specific descriptor?
