So a person who killed their child would be free to roam around freely as long as they agree not to have more kids or not to kill someone else's kid(s)? That seems utterly crazy to me.

It's not about what the person says he or she would do. We'd have to believe that this person would not commit this or a similar crime again. There would have to be no legitimate purpose (as in deterrence or rehabilitation) that would be served by imprisoning them.

Did you deliberately or accidentally omit the part of my post where I gave reasons why we might still imprison people? You're jumping directly from "inflicting suffering should not ever be a goal of the criminal justice system" to "we do nothing when people commit crimes." My position is the former, not the latter.

I bet a lot more people would steal if the penalties were lighter (or non-existent; e.g., the civil-court recourse you mentioned earlier).

Why you would consider civil penalties to be "non-existent"? Having to pay for the harm you caused seems entirely reasonable to me, but it's not a free ride.

But either way, the inclination to steal seems like a sufficient reason for society to lock a person away.

Locking someone away should be a last resort. You're essentially giving up on making this person at all useful, and spending a lot of money. Prison as it exists today is expensive and life-destroying. You have to weigh the damage a car thief causes society against the harm you're causing this person. You don't get to say "this person harmed society so we no longer have to consider his humanity or the consequences of what we do to him."

There are other ways to address the problem, especially when we're talking about non-violent offenders who are a nuisance, rather than a danger, to society. Examples might be community service, or temporary restrictions on travel, or monitoring, or the current equivalent of our parole system. Once again, these all serve as restitution or means to prevent future crime without the need to throw someone in a cage to satisfy "righteous" anger.

Prohibition lasted for 14 years, while the drug laws have been on the books for over half a century. The most onerous of the drug laws were enacted in the 1980s by members of the Democratic party — a party that typically gets upwards of 85 percent of the vote of the alleged "victims" of these drug laws. There's neither a national consensus that drugs should be legalized nor a big right-wing conspiracy to imprison more and more blacks for purposes of the "prison industrial complex."

You seem to want to make this partisan, but I agree that both parties are pretty lousy on these issues. However, if you want to ask why Democrats get more credit than Republicans on these issues, it's because a Democratic administration and Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010. Yes, the compromise bill ultimately had bipartisan support, but such laws had been introduced in Congress for years without being passed. The Obama administration was the first one that made it a high priority.

You keep declaring the drug laws "stupid," but if there was anything like a consensus that they're stupid, they would have been repealed by now, or, at the very least, there would be a lot more momentum for repealing or changing them.

I'm not sure what the absence of a consensus is meant to prove.

Again, the solution for "stupid" or "unjust" laws is to change the laws. We can't allow each individual person to decide which laws they're going to follow, and we assuredly don't want the police deciding which laws they're going to enforce.

I agree. So do you support changing the laws?

It's not about what the person says he or she would do. We'd have to believe that this person would not commit this or a similar crime again. There would have to be no legitimate purpose (as in deterrence or rehabilitation) that would be served by imprisoning them.

I just think you're completely wrong here. Punishment is a legitimate purpose.

It's called the "justice system", not the "rehabilitation system" or "deterrance system". The purpose is to render justice to society and to the victim for the harm the criminal has caused.

Justice requires a punishment of comparable severity to the wrong committed. For the proper functioning of a civil society, punishment is as important as prevention, more important than deterrance, and certainly more important than rehabilitation.

If the courts do not mete out just punishments, society will lose all respect, and deteriorate into vigilantism, and personal vengeance.

An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind.


Seriously snapper, you hold some downright frightening views.

If the courts do not mete out just punishments, society will lose all respect, and deteriorate into vigilantism, and personal vengeance.

This is true. I think there is a good moral argument for what Bird is saying and, if everyone agreed with him, it would work. But hardly anyone agrees with him. People would be outraged about "light" sentences and many (certainly not most) would eventually act on the outrage. Rehab is to be hoped for but a big part of the justice system is convincing the population at large that "bad" guys will get theirs. If you lose that, you'll lose an awful lot of what makes most of us law-abiding citizens.


For instance, if I steal your car and, upon being caught, am only required to give you you car back, then why should I not take the risk? Best case, free car. Worst case, even. If you stipulate then that there should be a punitive measure on top of returning the car, then we're just haggling over where to set that.

So a person who killed their child would be free to roam around freely as long as they agree not to have more kids or not to kill someone else's kid(s)?

Would you rather let the *government* raise your children?

Y'alls can talk about drugs and drug laws all you want, but while you're gabbing, Mark Trail is in action! This promises to be Mark Trail's best Festivus ever!

"WHATEVER THAT PLANT IS, THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T PLANT IT!"

Seriously snapper, you hold some downright frightening views.

Frightening? This is the basic theory of criminal justice held for millenia?

I'm not talking about punishment as revenge. I'm talking punishment as restitution and restoration of the civil order. It's not eye-for-an-eye, we don't rape and torture the rapist who tortures his victim.

When a criminal commits a crime, he does two wrongs 1) harm to the victim, 2) harm to society by breaching the civil order. Punishment has to recognize both of these things, mere restitution isn't sufficient.

Letting a criminal go free, or insufficiently punished, because you only look at prevention and deterrance, causes a permanent breach of the civil order, and damages society.

A government that systematically fails to punish criminals with appropriate severity will inevitably lose legitimacy.

It's not eye-for-an-eye, we don't rape and torture the rapist who tortures his victim.

Actually, there's a reasonably high chance that he would be raped in prison, and that the "justice" system would turn a blind eye to prison rape as they always do, considering it "part of the punishment."

It's not about what the person says he or she would do. We'd have to believe that this person would not commit this or a similar crime again. There would have to be no legitimate purpose (as in deterrence or rehabilitation) that would be served by imprisoning them.

Did you deliberately or accidentally omit the part of my post where I gave reasons why we might still imprison people? You're jumping directly from "inflicting suffering should not ever be a goal of the criminal justice system" to "we do nothing when people commit crimes." My position is the former, not the latter.

I deliberately omitted it — not to be misleading, but because it seemed pie-in-the-sky. The current criminal justice system at least presumes to be about rehabilitation, yet the known recidivism rate is upwards of 70 percent, and that's before considering that only a fraction of all felonies are cleared by the police.

What, exactly, would make you "believe that this person would not commit this or a similar crime again" that would allow for a shorter prison sentence or even no prison sentence, and would have substantially lower recidivism rates than exist now? You've apparently thought up an entirely new system of criminal justice that you haven't described for us.

Why you would consider civil penalties to be "non-existent"? Having to pay for the harm you caused seems entirely reasonable to me, but it's not a free ride.

Because this type of system would be utterly absurd. In your world, the police apparently would have no interest in catching car thieves or vandals or other non-violent offenders who steal or damage property. It would seemingly be up to the property owner to track them down and then serve them with a civil lawsuit for damages. Such a system would be nuts.

Prison as it exists today is expensive and life-destroying. You have to weigh the damage a car thief causes society against the harm you're causing this person. You don't get to say "this person harmed society so we no longer have to consider his humanity or the consequences of what we do to him."

Oh, yes we can. Prison should be "life-destroying" for criminals who've destroyed lives — murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. And it should be life-altering for repeat offenders of other stripes, whether it's grand theft or vandalism or any number of other crimes.

***

You seem to want to make this partisan, but I agree that both parties are pretty lousy on these issues.

I don't want to make it partisan. I was simply objecting to the idea that the drug laws are evidence of the "racism" in the GOP, despite the fact the harsh anti-crack laws were written by Democrats. I'd be shocked if more than 1 in 10 liberals know that the harshest drug laws of the '80s were proudly written and passed by Tip O'Neill & Co. (And, yes, signed by Reagan, but they didn't originate with him.)

However, if you want to ask why Democrats get more credit than Republicans on these issues, it's because a Democratic administration and Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010.

So laws written and passed by Democrats "victimized" blacks for over 25 years, but a 2010 law suddenly mitigated all of that and gave Dems the moral high ground? Please.

I'm not sure what the absence of a consensus is meant to prove.

It's meant to prove that the persistent claim here that the drug laws are "stupid" is a claim that's in dispute, and that there's nothing close to a consensus that the police should simply stop enforcing the laws as written.

I agree. So do you support changing the laws?

I've conceded several times that it seems counterproductive to warehouse non-violent drug offenders, especially non-violent users, in prisons. I don't, however, have a better solution at the ready. As I've said previously, even if drugs were legalized, there would still be huge demand for rehab beds, prison cells, etc. There aren't millions of people serving 5-year sentences simply for having one joint in their pocket, and at some point, a lot of drug users need some sort of court- or society-imposed drug rehab and/or prison. People around here talk about drug legalization like it would only involve casual weekend pot smokers, but something would have to be done with, or available to, the cocaine, crack, meth, etc., addicts who, sooner rather than later, have no control over their addictions.

Actually, there's a reasonably high chance that he would be raped in prison, and that the "justice" system would turn a blind eye to prison rape as they always do, considering it "part of the punishment."

But we don't account for this in the sentencing. If they're raped in prison they could get a shorter sentence, or conversely if they weren't raped they have to stay there longer. Which increases their chances of getting raped. It's a vicious circle.

I think there is probably middle ground between "only rehabilitive" and "maximum pain" in sentencing the convicted.

I'm firmly in the camp that thinks there should be a punitive measure in sentencing and, as Joe said, the sentence should be life-destroying for those that destroy lives. But I'm also very comfortable with the idea that most of our sentencing features biases, discrimination and simply random, Helleresque events that make it far from admirable and harmful in many situations.

As for drugs and crime, my opinion is, drug use should be legal with the caveat that it does not excuse subsequent behavior. Get drunk and run someone down? Murder. Do a few lines of coke and tear your house apart? Your business. Do a few lines of coke and tear a bar apart? A crime, both civil and criminal.

Much less time for non-violent crime and much more time for violent crime. Rehab where you can. And, yes, address the inequities in the system which, maybe more important* than race include economic status.


* I say maybe more important because it isn't clear to me how much apparent racism in sentencing and conviction rate isn't simply financial. People with money do okay, people without don't and more blacks don't have the money than whites.

I agree with Bunyon with the added measure that Crosby's views are evil, disgusting, and malignant.

If justice isn't about giving people what they deserve then it isn't about anything. We can have a moral and rational conversation over what people deserve but there can be no conversation about justice with someone who rejects the basic premise of justice.

I say that someone who kills a child deserves to die. You may disagree, and I'm willing to listen to reasons. However, if you begin the conversation on the premise that they don't deserve anything and our only responsibility is to ensure it doesn't happen again then there is nothing to talk about. By your ideological focus on the future at the expense of the past you shatter the underlying continuity that makes human beings humans. At its core Crosbybird's view isn't simply wrong it is fundamentally anti-human.*

*Which isn't surprising since his brand of libertarianism leads to some form of post or transhuman doctrine.

Actually, there's a reasonably high chance that he would be raped in prison, and that the "justice" system would turn a blind eye to prison rape as they always do, considering it "part of the punishment."

That's unconscionable. Every prisoner should be physically secure in prison, even if they have to have 23-hour lockdown.

If you want to impose extremely severe punishments on prison rapists (permanent solitary, or death penalty), I'm on board.

But I'm also very comfortable with the idea that most of our sentencing features biases, discrimination and simply random, Helleresque events that make it far from admirable and harmful in many situations.

No doubt.

If you want to impose extremely severe punishments on prison rapists (permanent solitary, or death penalty), I'm on board.

Agreed, and I'm also on board with severe penalties for guards who facilitate it, or even turn a blind eye to it. (Admittedly, prosecuting this is easier said than done, given the omerta among guards and the less-than-Eagle Scout inmate victims and witnesses.)

That's unconscionable. Every prisoner should be physically secure in prison, even if they have to have 23-hour lockdown.

Unconscionable or not, it's the fact of the world. Our current prison system systemically ignores, and thus condones, prison rape. To the point that it is a joke in our culture.

I disagree with you that the solution to prisoner sexual abuse by other prisoners is to systemically abuse them with mental torture (23-hour lockdown, "permanent solitary" or the death penalty.)

Yeah, my sense is - not that this is a good thing - that most people are appalled at prison rape but haven't a clue what to do with it.

And I'll be honest, I don't have a clue what to do with the justice system. People who do the most hideous things I have little sympathy for. If those folks were all thrown in an Escape from New York hellhole, I'd really be fine with it. Except: not all the convicted will be guilty (my same problem with the death penalty) and our current system mixes in a fair number of people whose "crimes" are certainly anti-social, need to be dealt with, but are also the kind of thing I could see almost anyone doing under the right (or wrong) set of circumstances. Where that line is, between truly evil (or "bad") person and person who reacted to a lousy set of circumstances in a less than useful manner is subjective and almost impossible to determine with any accuracy, even if everyone agreed on where it should be.

I do think society sticks its head in the ground. Whether it is the uber-vigillante who wants to condemn them all to a terrible, violent hellish prison or the guy who wants to give them all a backrub and quietly admonish them before turning them back out into society or all the rest of us in between who see it is a lousy system full of holes and do little about it.

So, what would you do Sam? Webcams every four feet? I agree with your premise but see little in the way of solution.

Yeah, my sense is - not that this is a good thing - that most people are appalled at prison rape but haven't a clue what to do with it.

Unfortunately, I don't get the sense that most people are appalled by it. Rather, jokes about it are perfectly acceptable in polite company and popular culture.

I have no objection to prisons serving a punitive function, but our epidemic of tolerated prison rape is abhorrent. If we think rape should be part of the punishment, our society should have the courage of its convictions and sentence people to X years in prison coupled with Y number of forcible rapes.

This is true. I think there is a good moral argument for what Bird is saying and, if everyone agreed with him, it would work. But hardly anyone agrees with him. People would be outraged about "light" sentences and many (certainly not most) would eventually act on the outrage.

Those people would then be subject to criminal and civil sanction. They're offenders too, whether they believe themselves justified or not.

Rehab is to be hoped for but a big part of the justice system is convincing the population at large that "bad" guys will get theirs. If you lose that, you'll lose an awful lot of what makes most of us law-abiding citizens.

Then we need to work especially hard at destroying that repulsive aspect of the human condition. You can judge a man's civility through his actions towards those who have harmed him. We'll never become truly civilized until we stop behaving like monsters, and vengeance is a monstrous impulse.

I'm not suggesting that we turn the other cheek. I'm suggesting that we address evildoers as societal problems to be solved, not as targets to provide catharsis for our violent impulses.

For instance, if I steal your car and, upon being caught, am only required to give you you car back, then why should I not take the risk? Best case, free car. Worst case, even.

In order to properly make me whole, you need to also compensate me for the indirect costs associated with the theft, including lost wages, court costs and reasonable lawyer fees, replacement cost, etc. I'm just talking on the civil side.

If you stipulate then that there should be a punitive measure on top of returning the car, then we're just haggling over where to set that.

I don't suggest a punitive measure at all. I would support some restitution-based measures: community service and/or fines to compensate society for the expenses of law enforcement, for example. I would support some deterrence-based measures: larger fines than simple damages to remove the incentive to steal. I would support some restrictions on freedom (which may, in some cases, include imprisonment) for the purpose of rehabilitation.

I'm not sure why it keeps coming back to this. I can't state it more clearly than I have already: the idea is not that we shouldn't address crime, but that we should remove the idea of "punishment" from our system. We may well do things that end up punishing people in order to address the harm caused by their crimes, but the goal should never be to make them suffer because they did something bad.

Always good to see the "two wrongs make a right" school of thought healthily represented.

So, what would you do Sam? Webcams every four feet? I agree with your premise but see little in the way of solution.

There are cameras all over prisons already. The problem isn't that the rape happens in secret or that it's undocumented. The problem is that the prison system - the guards, the wardens, the cops, the DAs - consider prison rape to be part of the punishment. An unspoken part in the political halls of the DA's offices, sure. More of a laugh out loud joke and a threat to be leveraged when so desired by the guards. It's an acceptance that seeps so deeply into our culture at large that we *all know the joke.* "Enjoy sharing a cell with Big Bubba, Mr. Madoff!" It's endemic.

The problem stems from the overly punitive mindset Snapper is exhibiting here. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying Snapper *wants* prisoners to be raped by other prisoners. I'm saying that the coldness and "meh" attitude which leads to the prevalence of prison rape is directly descended from the "harsh punishment is deserved" crowd.

To solve the problem, we must first solve the issue of a "justice" system that is blind to the problem. We must completely rebuild the industry from the guards up, to the point where they understand that they are no merely meters out of righteous punishment, but also *caretakers of the men in their charge.* Prisoners are in *prison.* If they are abused there, it is the criminal justice system's fault and blame.

I've conceded several times that it seems counterproductive to warehouse non-violent drug offenders, especially non-violent users, in prisons. I don't, however, have a better solution at the ready. As I've said previously, even if drugs were legalized, there would still be huge demand for rehab beds, prison cells, etc.

You can pay for a lot of rehab beds with $40 billion dollars per year.

I disagree with you that the solution to prisoner sexual abuse by other prisoners is to systemically abuse them with mental torture (23-hour lockdown, "permanent solitary" or the death penalty.)

So what are you going to do to deter and punish the rapists? Part of the reason they do it is b/c they're facing such a long sentence, they have no fear. Add the death penalty or permanent solitary, and now they fear you again.

So, what would you do Sam? Webcams every four feet? I agree with your premise but see little in the way of solution.

Seriously? You think that prisons currently do everything in their power to prevent rape, and the only way to lessen the rate of sexual assault in prison is with technological upgrades?

There have been any number of journalistic accounts of the failures of our criminal justice system to prevent rape, and the failures go way, way beyond lack of webcames.

See this New York Review of Books article from a couple years ago, for instance. An anecdote:

As appalling as this figure is, mere numbers can obscure what is at issue here. So consider the case of Scott Howard. Scott was a gay, non-violent, first-time inmate in a Colorado prison when he was targeted by members of the “2-11 crew,” a white supremacist gang with over 1,000 members in prisons throughout the state. For two years he was forced into prostitution by the gang’s leaders, repeatedly raped and made to perform oral sex. Even after he told prison staff that he was being raped and needed protection from the gang, Scott was told that nothing could be done unless he named his abusers—even though they had threatened to kill him if he did. Because Scott is openly gay, some officials blamed him for the attacks, saying that as a homosexual he should expect to be targeted by one gang or another. And by his account, even those officers who were not hostile didn’t know how to respond to his reports, because appropriate procedures were not in place. They failed to take even the most basic measures to protect him.

Ultimately, despite his fear, Scott did identify some of the gang members who had raped him. Not only did the prison authorities again fail to respond, they later put Scott in a holding cell with one of his previous assailants on the day he was to be released from state custody. Again, he was beaten and forced to perform oral sex.

Howard's case became famous because he sued the state and won, but his case is in no other respects uncommon. The entire prison system is set up to turn a blind eye to prisoner-on-prisoner rape - and on guard-on-prisoner rape, especially in women's prisons.

Those people would then be subject to criminal and civil sanction. They're offenders too, whether they believe themselves justified or not.

Sure, but if I kill my wife's rapist or child's killer, I'm not a risk to re-offend. The only person I wanted dead is dead already.

So, I go scot-free.

The only way I get punished is if I botch the job and leave him alive. So, I'll be deterred from beating up a criminal, but killing him is a free ride.

Then we need to work especially hard at destroying that repulsive aspect of the human condition.

Well, good luck with that. People are what they are. I'd aruge we have, and probably are, slowly changing to what you hope for us. But you aren't going to live to see the end of it.



Sam, yeah, okay - the only solution I could see is tear it all down and start over and that seems to be what you're saying.

Then we need to work especially hard at destroying that repulsive aspect of the human condition. You can judge a man's civility through his actions towards those who have harmed him. We'll never become truly civilized until we stop behaving like monsters, and vengeance is a monstrous impulse.

I'm not suggesting that we turn the other cheek. I'm suggesting that we address evildoers as societal problems to be solved, not as targets to provide catharsis for our violent impulses.

No. 100% wrong. Revenge is a bad impulse, the desire retribution and punishment (especially for people who have harmed victims to whom we have no connection) is a noble impulse.

I agree with Gaelan, though I wouldn't be as harsh, that it's your strictly utilitarian stance that is monstrous.

You completely disregard the victim, and completely disregard the human need for justice.

From a decade-old Human Rights Watch report - still I think the most comprehensive study on the subject.

I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense. My 3rd one. When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this. I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics. And very shy. These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically. I have been raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever think I'd see straight again. One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segragation though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my cell mate. There is no supervision after lockdown. I was given a conduct report. I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He told me that off the record, He suggests I find a man I would/could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening. I've requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was no where to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things . . . . I probably have AIDS now. I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or thinking to hard on all this . . . . I've laid down without physical fight to be sodomized. To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing. Though in not fighting, it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well. Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.

This is not a system that is doing its best and could use some webcams, it is a system that needs major and achievable reform.

I agree with others that we seem to be a long way away from the political will to do anything - the NYRB article is about Eric Holder's foot-dragging on new rules and guidelines to prevent sexual assault in prison - but I think it's very clear that while absolutely ending prison rape is perhaps utopian, significantly decreasing the rate of prison rape is entirely achievable. "Doing more than recommending you find a partner you would consent to sex with" is one of those achievable steps, along with "not locking a rapist and his former victim up in the same room".

EDIT: For people who want more than anecdotes, there's tons of data in the HRW report, and the NYRB article also links to a series of reports and reform proposals.

Sure, but if I kill my wife's rapist or child's killer, I'm not a risk to re-offend. The only person I wanted dead is dead already.

So, I go scot-free.

Not that Snapper can read this, but what part of 'deterrence' is so hard for people to grasp. You go to prison not only so that you don't reoffend, but so that others don't offend either.

Sam, yeah, okay - the only solution I could see is tear it all down and start over and that seems to be what you're saying.

You can design a prison that is virtually rape and violence proof.

Give every prisoner an individual cell, with it's own bathroom, TV, access to books, newpapers, etc., and even piecework type labor. Hell, give them phones so they can talk to other prisoners.

The meals, books, work materials, etc. can be delivered by trustees.

Physical recreation is in small yards with limited numbers of prisoners, heavily monitored.

Basically, eliminate any communal space (dining halls, factories, showers) where prisoners can act unsupervised.

As for drugs and crime, my opinion is, drug use should be legal with the caveat that it does not excuse subsequent behavior. Get drunk and run someone down? Murder. Do a few lines of coke and tear your house apart? Your business. Do a few lines of coke and tear a bar apart? A crime, both civil and criminal.

That's my position too. You can do anything you want to your own body and your own property, but you're responsible for all of the damage that you do to other people and other people's property. In your scenario of "do a few lines of coke and tear a bar apart," you should be held precisely as responsible as the person who don't use any drug at all and tears a bar apart.

Which isn't surprising since his brand of libertarianism leads to some form of post or transhuman doctrine.

That's a feature, not a bug. I freely admit that I'm seeking a moral transformation beyond anything seen before in human history. I think it is fundamentally necessary in order for our continued existence: if our ability to destroy grows while our moral impulse to destroy is not reduced, we will eventually drive ourselves into extinction.

So I don't see being called a transhumanist as any sort of insult. I embrace the idea that part of what makes us exceptional as a species is that we can become more than what we are, and that exceptional aspect of our nature is what gives me hope for the future.

Revenge is a bad impulse, the desire retribution and punishment (especially for people who have harmed victims to whom we have no connection) is a noble impulse.

That's a ######## semantic argument, snapper. There is little to no difference between revenge and retribution. Neither is a "noble" impulse.

retribution [?r?tr??bju???n]
n
1. the act of punishing or taking vengeance for wrongdoing, sin, or injury
2. punishment or vengeance

So what are you going to do to deter and punish the rapists?

Sweden. Sweden has rapists. Yet they have humane prisons as well. It's almost like it's not an impossible problem to solve.

Part of the reason they do it is b/c they're facing such a long sentence, they have no fear. Add the death penalty or permanent solitary, and now they fear you again.

You mean put the prison-rapers into solitary, not the victims? That at least makes more sense. I think there obviously has to be some additional sentencing to prison-rapers. Of course, if they're already in for life (which under your process more of them would be, I think) you have more, not less, "fearless" prisoners.

With that said, I don't think prisoners rape because they're facing long sentences. I think they rape in order to establish dominance in a prison ecology that is completely and utterly divorced from the civilized world - guards and administration included.

It's meant to prove that the persistent claim here that the drug laws are "stupid" is a claim that's in dispute, and that there's nothing close to a consensus that the police should simply stop enforcing the laws as written.

OK, the point of saying there's no consensus is to prove there's no consensus. We get it--there's no consensus. So what?

So laws written and passed by Democrats "victimized" blacks for over 25 years, but a 2010 law suddenly mitigated all of that and gave Dems the moral high ground? Please.

It goes beyond the 2010 law, that's just a clear example. What little support exists for legalization, reduced sentences, etc. comes mostly from the left and libertarians rather than Republicans. I don't think there's a moral high ground to be had in this case, but you asked the question, I'm just giving you the answer.

As I've said previously, even if drugs were legalized, there would still be huge demand for rehab beds, prison cells, etc. There aren't millions of people serving 5-year sentences simply for having one joint in their pocket, and at some point, a lot of drug users need some sort of court- or society-imposed drug rehab and/or prison. People around here talk about drug legalization like it would only involve casual weekend pot smokers, but something would have to be done with, or available to, the cocaine, crack, meth, etc., addicts who, sooner rather than later, have no control over their addictions.

You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody thinks that legalization of drugs will end all drug-related problems in our country. Legalization of alcohol didn't mean that alcoholism was no longer a problem, either. We try to deal with alcoholism in various ways, with varying levels of success and failure. We would deal with drug addiction in the same way, and it would be better than the current system.

So, what would you do Sam? Webcams every four feet? I agree with your premise but see little in the way of solution.

Acknowledging the reality and then working to greatly reduce the unnecessarily large prison population is one thing. It's not a solution, but it's a rational response.

I mean, look at this chart. American society functioned for decades with relatively consistent incarceration rates. Have American men really become much worse people over the last three decades such that a 4.5x increase in the incarceration rate is warranted?

Sure, but if I kill my wife's rapist or child's killer, I'm not a risk to re-offend. The only person I wanted dead is dead already.

So, I go scot-free.

The only way I get punished is if I botch the job and leave him alive. So, I'll be deterred from beating up a criminal, but killing him is a free ride.

You don't get a free ride.

1) You have to compensate the family of the person you kill.
2) You have to compensate society for the cost of enforcing the laws that you have broken.
3) You face consequences in order to deter other people from killing. (Imprisonment may well be one of those consequences.)
4) You are evaluated by professionals until there is a reasonable determination that you would not commit the same offense under the same circumstances. Until then, your freedom is restricted in some way. Some crimes may be serious enough that "until then" ends up being forever, although those crimes would have to be particular heinous (and likely multiple offenses).

That fourth point is critical. It's not "you won't kill again because you have no wife now, so you go free." It's "you wouldn't kill again if you remarried and someone did the same thing to your new wife."

That's a ######## semantic argument, snapper. There is little to no difference between revenge and retribution. Neither is a "noble" impulse.

Yeah, the only way what he's talking about gets in the same zip code as noble is if you act on the impulse and, say, help figure out who the thief was, or catch the murderer. But "I'd like to kill that ######\" or any variant of it might be a perfectly rational and normal thing to feel, but there's nothing remotely "noble" about it.

But "I'd like to kill that ######\" or any variant of it might be a perfectly rational and normal thing to feel, but there's nothing remotely "noble" about it.

Not as an "I". I'm not talking about individual retribution. The desire for individual retribution is not noble, though natural, and it is wrong to act on it.

I'm talking about society seeking retribution for the wrong committed against its members, and against the social order.

The desire for society to extract retribution is noble. It means I care about some random schmo who was mugged or killed, and I'm willing to support a system that gets justice for him.

You don't get a free ride.

1) You have to compensate the family of the person you kill.
2) You have to compensate society for the cost of enforcing the laws that you have broken.
3) You face consequences in order to deter other people from killing. (Imprisonment may well be one of those consequences.)
4) You are evaluated by professionals until there is a reasonable determination that you would not commit the same offense under the same circumstances. Until then, your freedom is restricted in some way. Some crimes may be serious enough that "until then" ends up being forever, although those crimes would have to be particular heinous (and likely multiple offenses).

That fourth point is critical. It's not "you won't kill again because you have no wife now, so you go free." It's "you wouldn't kill again if you remarried and someone did the same thing to your new wife."

So you constructed an elaborate facade to justify punishing me (cloaked in high minded platitudes), instead of just saying, "we're punishing you because you did something wrong". Well done.

I would support some deterrence-based measures: larger fines than simple damages to remove the incentive to steal.

Putting aside the Wall Street jokes, how many people who steal cars and property have bank accounts large enough to pay "large fines"? Your whole concept of "justice" is pie-in-the-sky.

That's a feature, not a bug. I freely admit that I'm seeking a moral transformation beyond anything seen before in human history.

LOL. Why think so small?

Not as an "I". I'm not talking about individual retribution. The desire for individual retribution is not noble, though natural, and it is wrong to act on it.

I'm talking about society seeking retribution for the wrong committed against its members, and against the social order.

The desire for society to extract retribution is noble. It means I care about some random schmo who was mugged or killed, and I'm willing to support a system that gets justice for him.

This is, again, a distinction without a difference. If it is wrong for a single person to seek retribution, then it is wrong for a whole society to seek retribution for that person. And again, none of it is "noble".

Acknowledging the reality and then working to greatly reduce the unnecessarily large prison population is one thing. It's not a solution, but it's a rational response.

This should be stressed a little more. There are two immediate steps that could be taken to drastically improve the prison abuse problem.

First, stop sending non-violent offenders to prison. Start with decriminalizing possession and ending the inane, stupid, completely failed "war on drugs." (The worst waste of federal funds in the history of the nation, by the way.)

Second, drop the hammer on prison personnel to police and eliminate the problem inside. If a guard turns an eye from rape, charge him as a ####### accomplice and send him to the other side of the bars.

Those two steps, in tandem, would remove a vast sea of resource straining over population in the prison system, while focusing the system itself to protect as well as incarcerate the remaining prisoner population.

LOL. Why think so small?

Small thoughts are for small men. It's not a shock that you would gravitate to them.

OK, the point of saying there's no consensus is to prove there's no consensus. We get it--there's no consensus. So what?

That's been my question for two pages now. As I've said several times, "The law is stupid" isn't an affirmative defense to breaking a law, but some people here seem to believe the police shouldn't enforce drug laws and/or that everyone in jail on a possession charge should be freed.

We would deal with drug addiction in the same way, and it would be better than the current system.

If this was demonstrably true, why aren't we doing it already? Every politician loves to be able to claim they're doing the "right" thing and/or the "cost-efficient" thing.

***

The desire for society to extract retribution is noble. It means I care about some random schmo who was mugged or killed, and I'm willing to support a system that gets justice for him.

It's troubling that a bunch of people here don't buy into this. It seems like the most basic part of a civil society.

This is, again, a distinction without a difference. If it is wrong for a single person to seek retribution, then it is wrong for a whole society to seek retribution for that person. And again, none of it is "noble".

Absolutely not. Society acting as a whole has rights beyond that of the individual. The operation of a criminal justice system, the ability to tax for the common good, the ability to wage war are the most obvious.

Any society that dismisses punishment and retribution from the legal system values the criminal over the victim, which is heinous.

Second, drop the hammer on prison personnel to police and eliminate the problem inside. If a guard turns an eye from rape, charge him as a ####### accomplice and send him to the other side of the bars.

No sane person should disagree with this.

First, stop sending non-violent offenders to prison. Start with decriminalizing possession and ending the inane, stupid, completely failed "war on drugs." (The worst waste of federal funds in the history of the nation, by the way.)

I think there's some truth here, but reality is far more nuanced than just "decriminalize all drugs" and the world will be great. I agree people shouldn't be jailed for simple possession.

It's troubling that a bunch of people here don't buy into this. It seems like the most basic part of a civil society.

Yes. Placing tremendous value on the life of the criminal, and virtually none of that of the victim b/c "hey we can't bring the dead back, or un-rape that woman, or un-molest that kid" is truly disturbing.

Small thoughts are for small men. It's not a shock that you would gravitate to them.

Gee, for such a self-styled Big Thinker, that was a rather grade-school rejoinder.

Anyway, while you're busy transforming humanity beyond its wildest imagination, I'll stick to more mundane concerns, like agitating for the continued imprisonment of murderers and rapists, rather than giving them hugs and freshly baked cookies like you and Crosby propose.

Small thoughts are for small men. It's not a shock that you would gravitate to them.

Oh come on, that's slander! Joe has shown that he is perfectly willing to not think at all.

Anyway, while you're busy transforming humanity beyond its wildest imagination, I'll stick to more mundane concerns, like agitating for the continued imprisonment of murderers and rapists, rather than the hugs and freshly baked cookies you and Crosby propose for them.

Cookies really do make everything better though.

Yeah, the only way what he's talking about gets in the same zip code as noble is if you act on the impulse and, say, help figure out who the thief was, or catch the murderer.

Zip codes don't work like that.

Yes. Placing tremendous value on the life of the criminal, and virtually none of that of the victim b/c "hey we can't bring the dead back, or un-rape that woman, or un-molest that kid" is truly disturbing.

You have succeeded in totally missing the point. My boss just told me I could leave work now, so I am not going to continue this. Have fun.

So you constructed an elaborate facade to justify punishing me (cloaked in high minded platitudes), instead of just saying, "we're punishing you because you did something wrong". Well done.

I'm not punishing you. I'm holding you responsible for your actions. I'm defending myself and others. I'm helping fix whatever it is that makes you unfit to be a member of society.

Motive is critical here. When people are wronged by others, there is an emotional response that should be acknowledged but not indulged.

Putting aside the Wall Street jokes, how many people who steal cars and property have bank accounts large enough to pay "large fines"? Your whole concept of "justice" is pie-in-the-sky.

How about I suggest five or six different ways to address a problem, and you say that since one of them doesn't work in a particular situation that the whole solution falls apart? If you can't pay "large fines," then perhaps the government can take some of that money that would be spent locking you in a cage and use it to compensate your victim. You'll be required to compensate the community for those tax dollars in some way that doesn't necessarily have to be money; it can be through community service that has a comparable value.

I'd replace a lot of prison and fines for non-violent offenses with community service. It doesn't have to be deliberately designed to be unpleasant either; if a lawyer convicted of a DUI provides five hundred hours of free legal service to those who cannot afford it, that provides a lot more value to society than locking him in a cage for five years. It doesn't require any particular talent or skill to handle a ladle at a soup kitchen or to sort recyclables in a garbage dump. Those with aptitude and desire could actually learn useful skills while compensating society as well: that not only pays the fine but also greatly reduces recidivism.

It depends on what your ultimate goal is here. Do you want to spend a lot of money to make people suffer when they wrong society, or do you want to work to build a society where people don't feel the impulse to wrong society in the first place?

Zip codes don't work like that.

Zip+4?

I'm not punishing you. I'm holding you responsible for your actions. I'm defending myself and others. I'm helping fix whatever it is that makes you unfit to be a member of society.

"Holding me responsible for my actions" is punishment.

Many criminals are unfit to be a member and can't be "fixed". They are evil; sociopaths. They can only be contained.

Many criminals are unfit to be a member and can't be "fixed". They are evil; sociopaths. They can only be contained.

Takes one to know one.

And may I again point out, that nobody here has made the case that imprisoning people who are indeed a danger to society, in order to prevent them from doing further harm, is wrong.

The amount of strawmanning going on here is staggering.

That's been my question for two pages now. As I've said several times, "The law is stupid" isn't an affirmative defense to breaking a law, but some people here seem to believe the police shouldn't enforce drug laws and/or that everyone in jail on a possession charge should be freed.

I don't see how these things follow. First off, I have not seen anyone argue that police shouldn't enforce the law, so I'm not going to respond to that. But on your second point, the law is unjust, unnecessary and counterproductive. It should be overturned and those in prison because of it should be freed. I'm not arguing they should be freed by any means necessary, I'm arguing they should be freed via the democratic process. How does the lack of consensus on the topic contradict my point? Consensus doesn't exist, so let's work together to build it. This is a topic that just about everyone on this site agrees on, despite the wide range of political viewpoints represented. That shows that building a consensus should be possible.

That's been my question for two pages now. As I've said several times, "The law is stupid" isn't an affirmative defense to breaking a law, but some people here seem to believe the police shouldn't enforce drug laws and/or that everyone in jail on a possession charge should be freed.

"The law is stupid" (or "bad" or "unjust") is a really good reason not to have the law in the first place. The solution is not to have stupid laws and ignore them. The solution is to repeal stupid laws (and have the repeal be retroactive for current prisoners).

The bias in enforcement demonstrates that the law is "unjust." The overwhelmingly negative result of a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the law is "bad." The foundation of ignorance that is used to support the law demonstrates that the law is "stupid."

I suppose you could make an argument that one has a civic duty to resist "stupid," "bad," and "unjust" laws. If placed on a jury, I would nullify any non-violent drug offense. I would never become a police officer, but if somehow placed in such a position of authority, I would ignore non-violent drug offenses. If given the freedom as a prosecutor to pick cases, I would not bring charges in non-violent drug offenses. If somehow appointed to an executive position, I would provide for the instant parole of all non-violent drug offenders. (There's a reason that I'd never work for the government.)

If this was demonstrably true, why aren't we doing it already? Every politician loves to be able to claim they're doing the "right" thing and/or the "cost-efficient" thing.

For a lot of reasons that have already been described in this thread. Vested interests. Risk averse politicians. Enforcement and sentencing disparities which ensure that those with the power to change things run little risk of being exposed to the system's worst faults.

"Holding me responsible for my actions" is punishment.

I don't want to turn this into a semantic game. I think it's very clear what I'm talking about: restitution, deterrence, isolation, rehabilitation are all reasonable; retribution is not reasonable.

The context in which I am saying "I'm not punishing you" is specifically saying "I am not punishing you out of a desire for retribution."

Many criminals are unfit to be a member and can't be "fixed". They are evil; sociopaths. They can only be contained.

Then they must be isolated from society until such time as they can be cured. In the case of a true sociopath, that isolation should be in a mental institution.

I don't want to turn this into a semantic game. I think it's very clear what I'm talking about: restitution, deterrence, isolation, rehabilitation are all reasonable; retribution is not reasonable.

The context in which I am saying "I'm not punishing you" is specifically saying "I am not punishing you out of a desire for retribution."

We'll have to disagree. Retribution is reasonable, and necessary. Justice for the victim demands it. No restitution is possible for many victims; monetary punishment, instead of prison time, would be an insult to a rape victim, or the family of a murdered person.

To insist on a merely utilitarian, forward looking, system is to disregard the value and suffering of the victim. Can't you see that at all?

Then they must be isolated from society until such time as they can be cured. In the case of a true sociopath, that isolation should be in a mental institution.

Sociopaths aren't crazy, they know what's right and wrong, legal and illegal, they just don't care about anyone else. Saying they should be in a mental institution is insulting to the mentally ill.

You don't need to believe your actions are wrong to be criminally liable, you just need to know that the state and society deem them wrong.

How about I suggest five or six different ways to address a problem, and you say that since one of them doesn't work in a particular situation that the whole solution falls apart?

I must have missed the "five or six different ways." All I've seen is high-minded talk about bare-minimum incarceration and some sort of civil-court system for getting restitution from non-violent offenders.

If you can't pay "large fines," then perhaps the government can take some of that money that would be spent locking you in a cage and use it to compensate your victim. You'll be required to compensate the community for those tax dollars in some way that doesn't necessarily have to be money; it can be through community service that has a comparable value.

Just out of curiosity, how many people who can't afford to pay the large fines you suggest would somehow be able to spend months or years doing unpaid community service and/or menial labor as restitution for their crimes? Or would the people doing this "community service" be receiving welfare and food stamps and all that?

***

But on your second point, the law is unjust, unnecessary and counterproductive. It should be overturned and those in prison because of it should be freed.

We're going in circles. The whole point, from my end, has been that if people don't like the drug laws, they should work to change the drug laws. Calling them "stupid" and complaining about "unfair" enforcement is just foot-stomping. I conceded right upfront that it seemed dumb to warehouse non-violent drug offenders in prisons, but the burden is on the people who don't like a law to challenge or change it, and I don't see much of this going on.

EDIT: For people who want more than anecdotes, there's tons of data in the HRW report, and the NYRB article also links to a series of reports and reform proposals.

- crickets -

So I don't see being called a transhumanist as any sort of insult. I embrace the idea that part of what makes us exceptional as a species is that we can become more than what we are, and that exceptional aspect of our nature is what gives me hope for the future.

But what you are talking would make us much, much, less than what we are. What you are talking about wouldn't be an evolution to some higher state, it is the reanimalization of human beings. Beginning with an animalistic/biological account of human beings and their society, it would proceed to make their life as comfortable as possible.

This is, again, a distinction without a difference. If it is wrong for a single person to seek retribution, then it is wrong for a whole society to seek retribution for that person. And again, none of it is "noble".

The word "retribution" means "to pay back." The difference between retribution and revenge is a question of desert, which transforms force into right. When you say that this is a semantic game you are saying that there is no such thing as desert, and hence there is no way to transform force into right. In which case everything is reducible to power and there is no such thing as nobility. Consequently the concept of retribution is at the core of the "noble" for if retribution is impossible so is nobility.

The irony of this position (that punishment is bad, that retribution is indistinguishable from revenge) think that they are defending a position of goodness (even though they think there is no such thing) and are defending the weak against the powerful. In fact they are reducing everything to power and robbing the weak of the one thing that could protect them from the powerful. In a world without Right there is nothing other than power.

Sociopaths aren't crazy, they know what's right and wrong, legal and illegal, they just don't care about anyone else.

Not exactly. They know what others consider right or wrong, and the more intelligent of them know legal from illegal. And I wouldn't classify sociopathy as "crazy" per se. Not in the schizoid sense of the term. But it's an elision of the question to state bluntly by raw assertion that sociopaths "know what's right and wrong" as if they live in the same moral universe as everyone else, but just choose to behave "badly."

But it's an elision of the question to state bluntly by raw assertion that sociopaths "know what's right and wrong" as if they live in the same moral universe as everyone else, but just choose to behave "badly."

There are always exceptions, but I'm guessing only a very small percentage of sociopaths don't know their actions are illegal. Beyond that, the moral vs. legal issue seems moot. Crime and punishment revolves around legality, not morality.

I don't want to turn this into a semantic game.

This whole discussion looks like a semantic game. The roots of the words "retribution" and "punishment" are very similar and effectively equate to making another pay. And that's all we have here. We're just quibbling about what it is appropriate to pay for with a series of unmoored moral assertions as to what is acceptable in that context. I could accept the argument that a criminal should only pay back to society the costs of his violation (it's laughable in practice, but that's a separate point) though I disagree with it, but when I see a list like the one in 237, the whole effort seems like a farce.

The third "acceptable" ground for punishment is "you face consequences in order to deter other people from killing." Accordingly, the state can't sentence me to jail becasue I killed Bob's son and society wants Bob to know that it objects to that in principle, not just to the monetary import of my conduct- that's ignoble. But, if the state wants to lock me away due to the possibility that it might do some good later- in effect using me as an example, which may or may not be effective, to people I have no connection with in any way- that's acceptable?

This distinction in terms of appropriate grounds for punishment seems ridiculous at best. You are locking me in jail just the same, you're simply putting a different veneer on why you've put me there. And the veneer- punishing people because it might do some good later- has substantially less justification, IMO, than punishing me because the state recognizes that the victims of crime are humans and should be treated as such. Not as commodities whose only value is assessed, and apparently only exists, monetarily.

It seems like a lot of effort, a rather dubious ground for incarceration, and a really awful way to view the value of humanity- all to end up in the same place. I don't see that you are eliminating retribution, it looks more like you're just hiding it under something else.

The word "retribution" means "to pay back." The difference between retribution and revenge is a question of desert, which transforms force into right. When you say that this is a semantic game you are saying that there is no such thing as desert, and hence there is no way to transform force into right. In which case everything is reducible to power and there is no such thing as nobility. Consequently the concept of retribution is at the core of the "noble" for if retribution is impossible so is nobility.

"To pay back" implies that there is tangible, valuable gain for the aggrieved parties (victims, families, society as a whole). I haven't seen anybody argue against that notion. Indeed, that is why there has been a focus on methods like community service, a process, where offenders positively add to society, in order to offset the negative they have inflicted.

What people instead are advocating though is to inflict suffering on another human being for their own amusement. It's torture, and it's barbaric.

Dammit Crosby, stop posting Orwell's rules.

What people instead are advocating though is to allow suffering on another human being for their own measurement. It's torture, and it's barbaric.

I like my random moral assertion better than yours. How do we pick a winner?

It seems like a lot of effort, a rather dubious ground for incarceration, and a really awful way to view the value of humanity- all to end up in the same place. I don't see that you are eliminating retribution, it looks more like you're just hiding it under something else.

No, it has very real applicable differences, regarding how you actually deal with:
a) non violent offenders
b) alternative measures to incarceration
c) conditions within prisons
d) opportunities for release/parole

What people instead are advocating though is to allow suffering on another human being for their own measurement. It's torture, and it's barbaric.

Random auto correct really messed up that sentence, sorry, fixed to make sense...

No, it has very real applicable differences, regarding how you actually deal with:
a) non violent offenders
b) alternative measures to incarceration
c) conditions within prisons
d) opportunities for release/parole

We have varying approaches to all of these already, and we've had them for a century. Why would Crosby's system magically yield better results?

To insist on a merely utilitarian, forward looking, system is to disregard the value and suffering of the victim. Can't you see that at all?

No, I don't see how forcing someone to compensate the victim is disregarding value and suffering. I see it as acknowledging it.

I do not see the value and suffering of the victim as something that must be acknowledged with vengeance. In fact, I think vengeance is harmful to society.

Just out of curiosity, how many people who can't afford to pay the large fines you suggest would somehow be able to spend months or years doing unpaid community service and/or menial labor as restitution for their crimes? Or would the people doing this "community service" be receiving welfare and food stamps and all that?

5 hours per week? 10 hours per week? If someone is obligated to work seven full days per week simply to maintain a basic standard of living, that's another serious social ill that must be addressed. Perhaps that level of existence is the reason this person is a criminal in the first place?

I conceded right upfront that it seemed dumb to warehouse non-violent drug offenders in prisons, but the burden is on the people who don't like a law to challenge or change it, and I don't see much of this going on.

This is a fundamental problem with the system. The burden should be on the lawmakers to justify the law, not on the people to refute the reasonableness of the law.

Crime and punishment revolves around legality, not morality.

Small thoughts for small men. Legality removed from morality is simply fascism and brute power.

We have varying approaches to all of these already, and we've had them for a century.

I am going to go with: WTF are you talking about.

Regarding point c, see the discussion of prison rape, and cited examples.

As for a,b and d, here is an excerpt from wikipedia:

7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[18] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes.[18] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge. 41% percent of convicted and unconvicted jail inmates in 2002 had a current or prior violent offense; 46% were nonviolent recidivists. [22]

From 2000 to 2008, the state prison population increased by 159,200 prisoners, and violent offenders accounted for 60% of this increase. The number of drug offenders in state prisons declined by 12,400 over this period. Furthermore, while the number of sentenced violent offenders in state prison increased from 2000 through 2008, the expected length of stays for these offenders declined slightly during this period.[18]

Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. [23][24]

But what you are talking would make us much, much, less than what we are. What you are talking about wouldn't be an evolution to some higher state, it is the reanimalization of human beings. Beginning with an animalistic/biological account of human beings and their society, it would proceed to make their life as comfortable as possible.

You'll have to show your work here.

I see no reason why being less vindictive is a step in the wrong direction. Nor do I see why comfort is a bad thing.

5 hours per week? 10 hours per week?

So a person who steals $50,000 or $100,000 (or does a similar amount of damage) wouldn't be incarcerated and would continue to live his regular life, but would be expected to ladle soup for 5 or 10 hours per week as restitution? LOL.

This is a fundamental problem with the system. The burden should be on the lawmakers to justify the law, not on the people to refute the reasonableness of the law.

Sounds wonderful. But not how it works in the system we have, and certainly not a retroactive solution to the drug laws.

***

Small thoughts for small men. Legality removed from morality is simply fascism and brute power.

No, realistic thoughts for realistic men. And if you want morality and legality to be more intertwined, you should run for office. Otherwise, your act here is little more than self-righteous performance art.

This distinction in terms of appropriate grounds for punishment seems ridiculous at best. You are locking me in jail just the same, you're simply putting a different veneer on why you've put me there. And the veneer- punishing people because it might do some good later- has substantially less justification, IMO, than punishing me because the state recognizes that the victims of crime are humans and should be treated as such. Not as commodities whose only value is assessed, and apparently only exists, monetarily.

There's no veneer at all.

I'm only locking you in jail if it ends up being the most effective way to address the harm you have caused. The idea that I'm not locking in jail because it's a terrible place to be that you deserve for being a bad person means that I have a responsibility to make sure that locking you in jail is the right solution. My focus is on solving the problem. Criminals don't exist in a vacuum; there are things about society that encourage criminal behavior. Crime is, generally speaking, not the problem, it is the symptom. What we're doing now is addressing the symptom without doing much at all to address the problem (and in fact, our methods of addressing the symptom actively contribute to the problem). That's the answer to this question:

We have varying approaches to all of these already, and we've had them for a century. Why would Crosby's system magically yield better results?

Our focus is in the wrong place. Mandatory minimums, strict liability, limitations on parole, permanent relegation of felons to the status of second-class citizens... none of these are driven by a desire to turn criminals into good citizens. They're all driven by a desire to hurt people who have hurt others. The reason we have bad results is precisely because our system is driven by terrible motives.

Even if you don't agree with the morality, you should at least consider the practicality. Our current system is indefensible. We incarcerate more people, and for longer sentences, than any other democratic first-world nation. We spend outrageous sums of money on enforcement of laws, many of which govern victimless crimes. There is an unquestionable racial bias in our system that contributes to incredible social unrest. We make it almost impossible for prisoners to ever truly redeem themselves: we strip them of the right to vote, we deny them gainful employment because of their past transgressions, we deny them acceptance in our communities even after they have supposedly "paid their debt" to society. We create the conditions that encourage crime through our response to crime.

For no other reason, my approach is better simply because it isn't making the same mistakes. We know where the path we're on is taking us.

Shorter Crosby: There's no such thing as a bad person, just a bad society.

***

We incarcerate more people, and for longer sentences, than any other democratic first-world nation.

I've repeatedly conceded that non-violent drug users shouldn't be warehoused in prisons. But where the above pertains to violent criminals and a wide variety of other repeat offenders, it's a feature, not a bug. There's nothing remotely shameful about locking uncivilized people away from the rest of society.

So a person who steals $50,000 or $100,000 (or does a similar amount of damage) wouldn't be incarcerated and would continue to live his regular life, but would be expected to ladle soup for 5 or 10 hours per week as restitution? LOL.

What sort of restitution would it be for this person to spend time locked in a cage, costing society even more money, and rendering this person even less productive? Now instead of $100,000 worth of damage to society, we've got $100,000 + the cost of imprisonment + the lost production. What value does this serve other than simple revenge? Is it worth the price for such a petty reason?

Also, I think I've said this enough that you should stop ignoring it: this person may very well be incarcerated as a deterrent, to isolate a dangerous person from society, or for rehabilitation purposes.

Sounds wonderful. But not how it works in the system we have, and certainly not a retroactive solution to the drug laws.

Correct. We currently have a bad system in need of repair. We should replace this terrible system with one that is a bit closer to wonderful. I'd accept simply "decent."

Also, I think I've said this enough that you should stop ignoring it: this person may very well be incarcerated as a deterrent, to isolate a dangerous person from society, or for rehabilitation purposes.

I know you keep saying it, but you don't really seem to believe it, and you certainly haven't explained how you would decide which non-violent car thieves and other criminals would get locked up. Strip away all of your flowery, high-minded talk, and it's hard to see how your rationale for incarceration is any different than the current system's.

Shorter Crosby: There's no such thing as a bad person, just a bad society.

More accurately, there are a very small number of irredeemably bad people, but there are a whole lot more that are so disadvantaged and so disenfranchised that crime is an unreasonably attractive option for them.

I have no problem locking up the irredeemably bad people, because they constitute a danger to society. I have a serious problem locking up people that would be good given a reasonable opportunity to be true members of society, and I have an even more serious problem taking petty violators and turning them into bad people.

I've repeatedly conceded that non-violent drug users shouldn't be warehoused in prisons. But where the above pertains to violent criminals and a wide variety of other repeat offenders, it's a feature, not a bug. There's nothing remotely shameful about locking uncivilized people away from the rest of society.

We bear some responsibility for creating repeat offenders. If someone gets out of prison and goes on to commit another crime, the system has failed, and this happens primarily because we do not rehabilitate our prisoners and we do not allow them to rejoin society as regular citizens. How shocking is it that they do not behave like regular citizens when they are not allowed to be regular citizens?

No, realistic thoughts for realistic men.

Ah yes. "Realism." The comfy pillow beneath which the weak and the incapable hide their pretty heads, for fear of the unknown dark of trying to do better. You do not disappoint expectations. I'll give you that much.

And if you want morality and legality to be more intertwined, you should run for office.

What purpose would that serve?

Otherwise, your act here is little more than self-righteous performance art.

My act here has always been performance art, a fact that your smarter and quicker compatriots picked up on years ago. Slow witted and weak willed. It's a double down of pathetic.

More accurately, there are a very small number of irredeemably bad people, but there are a whole lot more that are so disadvantaged and so disenfranchised that crime is an unreasonably attractive option for them.

You realize this line is never going to gain traction with this crowd, right? You're edging up onto historical materialism, and all that's going to lead to is a loud chorus of "socialist!" ringing down from the rafters. Their entire world view relies on moral agency being contained exclusively in the Fallen Soul.

The comfy pillow beneath which the weak and the incapable hide their pretty heads, for fear of the unknown dark of trying to do better.

Just how, exactly, are you "trying to do better"?

What purpose would that serve?

You mean, as opposed to ranting about drug laws on a baseball site?

My act here has always been performance art, a fact that your smarter and quicker compatriots picked up on years ago.

Your act was plainly apparent the first time I ran across you here (which wasn't "years ago"). The point was, if you believe the U.S. system is so fundamentally flawed, you might want to transition from act to action.

Just how, exactly, are you "trying to do better"?

The first step of changing a society is explaining to the rabble what they're doing wrong.

You mean, as opposed to ranting about drug laws on a baseball site?

Yep. (And in opposition to you, who prefer to rant in defense of the obviously immoral status quo on a baseball site, not because you believe that it is right to do so, but mostly because the sub-section of the regular participants of said site that you have deemed to be "liberal" have suggested the opposite, and you are defined only and entirely by that Other which you have set up to set against.)

The point was, if you believe the U.S. system is so fundamentally flawed, you might want to transition from act to action.

The act is an act. How could it be anything else?

I know you keep saying it, but you don't really seem to believe it, and you certainly haven't explained how you would decide which non-violent car thieves and other criminals would get locked up. Strip away all of your flowery, high-minded talk, and it's hard to see how your rationale for incarceration is any different than the current system's.

Motive drives method. Our current system is about making people suffer, and it's really good at doing that. Rehabilitation is an afterthought, and that's why recidivism is a problem. My system is about rehabilitation, and so it will be worse at making people suffer, but better at making them non-criminals once they're released.

How serious a problem is car theft? Frankly, it doesn't strike me as such a national problem that demands incarceration, nor a problem that causes outrageous financial damage (the sort that is unfixable over a reasonably short timeframe). I don't see an overwhelming need to incarcerate car thieves because that's a fairly drastic solution to a fairly minor problem (in the grand scheme of things).

How do I decide who goes to jail and who doesn't?

Generally, non-violent offenders don't go to jail very often or for very long. The exceptions have demonstrated absolute contempt for the system and are serial offenders. Pretty much all non-serial, non-violent offenders who demonstrate a good-faith effort to acknowledge the harm caused and to provide restitution reasonable for one within his or her means does not get locked up. Those people who are in such desperate circumstances as to be incapable of providing meaningful restitution are society's responsibility; we educate those people and provide skills appropriate to make them capable. Those that refuse such training or refuse to put forth the effort to make good on the harm caused are those that have "contempt for the system" and they go to prison until they are rehabilitated.

We end up in much the same place with violent criminals: they get incarcerated until it is clear that they are unlikely to commit violent crimes again. The difference is that I measure that based on their fitness to reenter society, and you measure based on picking an arbitrary length of time in a cell (so long as it's "a very long time").

We bear some responsibility for creating repeat offenders. If someone gets out of prison and goes on to commit another crime, the system has failed,

Agreed. The person probably wasn't locked up long enough.

and this happens primarily because we do not rehabilitate our prisoners and we do not allow them to rejoin society as regular citizens. How shocking is it that they do not behave like regular citizens when they are not allowed to be regular citizens?

What kind of rehabilitation do you propose, and how long should it take? You obviously don't like incarceration, but what are the better options for altering criminal behavior? (Again, I'm talking about altering — i.e., ending — criminal behavior, not preventing it in the next generation, which is a separate issue.)

For example, let's say some 18-year-old 10th-grade dropout gets caught stealing a car. How do you propose he "rejoin society as a regular citizen," whether it's after no incarceration, a month of incarceration, or two years of incarceration? At best, after two years of incarceration, he's a 20-year-old with a GED and high school-level skills. It's a fantasy to pretend that anything close to 100 percent of such people will happily rejoin society, take a $20,000 job at McDonald's, and never be tempted by criminality again.

How serious a problem is car theft? Frankly, it doesn't strike me as such a national problem that demands incarceration, nor a problem that causes outrageous financial damage (the sort that is unfixable over a reasonably short timeframe). I don't see an overwhelming need to incarcerate car thieves because that's a fairly drastic solution to a fairly minor problem (in the grand scheme of things).

From a purely fiscal perspective, the government could buy every victim of car theft a brand new car instead of spending to incarcerate the thief, and save millions if not billions per year.

Yep. (And in opposition to you, who prefer to rant in defense of the obviously immoral status quo on a baseball site, not because you believe that it is right to do so, but mostly because the sub-section of the regular participants of said site that you have deemed to be "liberal" have suggested the opposite, and you are defined only and entirely by that Other which you have set up to set against.)

LOL. Yes, us right-wingers are a bunch of pea-brained mouth-breathers who get our marching orders from Rush every morning, as opposed to the Big Thinkers like you whose every idea is original and unimpeachable. One can only hope life will be fairer after your proposed transhumanist moral transformation occurs.


(I'm not holding my breath.)

You obviously don't like incarceration, but what are the better options for altering criminal behavior?

Actually, Crosby doesn't seem to have a problem with incarceration, if the incarceration is part of a rehabilatory system, rather than our current retributive revenge/punishment for the sake of punishment system.

Yes, us right-wingers are a bunch of pea-brained mouth-breathers who get our marching orders from Rush every morning,

I said nothing about a general group. I said something about *you.*

The idea that I'm not locking in jail because it's a terrible place to be that you deserve for being a bad person means that I have a responsibility to make sure that locking you in jail is the right solution.

The "terrible place" stuff, like the prison rape, is a straw-man. The fact that I advocate for punishment out of the state's obligation to the victims of the crime says nothing about my view on the nature or severity of the punishment itself. Those are entirely separate discussions.

The question I'm interested in is what is the appropriate basis for the state's imposition of sentence (the sentence itself is a separate question.) I don't see how your third basis in 237 is any more just or reasonable than my view that the state should evidence some regard for the non-monetary concerns the victims have after a crime is committed. Nor do I see any reason, beyond bare assertion, that the state evidencing regard for the victims, outside of dollar signs, is ignoble, immoral, etc. That seems to be merely a claim for which no support has been provided.

I'm only locking you in jail if it ends up being the most effective way to address the harm you have caused.

I'm doing the same. I don't question your intentions. I question your conclusions. I don't think you're forcing the criminal- actual, convicted criminals are assumed for this discussion- to completely address the harm he has caused. I want to understand why you think that restricting the state to the limits you laid out in 237 (using the word "compensate" in the monetary sense as I assume you are using it) makes the state "better" in any sense. I don't see that at all. I see the reverse.

Practical question. If I intentionally kill Bob's son, when Bob sues me for compensation, can he receive punitive damages? Not have them assessed against me and payable to the state for deterrence purposes, but payable to him directly. In short, can he only made whole, or, in terms of dollars, can he get some punishment too?

I said nothing about a general group. I said something about *you.*

Ha ha. I didn't think people as dumb as me were worthy of The Great Sam Hutcheson's scorn. I must be moving up (or down?) in the world.

All kidding aside, for all your bombast and pomposity, I do appreciate your presence here. Most middle-aged practitioners of the Smartest Man on Earth shtick spend their time regaling teenagers at coffee shops, not faceless strangers on a message board.

Anyway, that's it for me for today. Hope the rest of you can figure out this crime-and-punishment thing.

Ha ha. I didn't think people as dumb as me were worthy of The Great Sam Hutcheson's scorn.

Sometimes the masters move the pawns. It happens.

I want to understand why you think that restricting the state to the limits you laid out in 237 (using the word "compensate" in the monetary sense as I assume you are using it) makes the state "better" in any sense. I don't see that at all. I see the reverse.

I guess we're just going to disagree. I don't think there's any healthy thing about vengeance, not for individuals, and not for society.

The idea of using a criminal's suffering as any measure of compensation seems nonsensical to me. What good purpose could it possibly serve that counteracts the tremendous damage it does to all of the parties involved?

Practical question. If I intentionally kill Bob's son, when Bob sues me for compensation, can he receive punitive damages? Not have them assessed against me and payable to the state for deterrence purposes, but payable to him directly. In short, can he only made whole, or, in terms of dollars, can he get some punishment too?

I don't believe that the victims of crimes should ever get a financial windfall. I don't mind punitive damages but those dollars should address social problems, not go into the pockets of individuals.

The idea of using a criminal's suffering as any measure of compensation seems nonsensical to me. What good purpose could it possibly serve that counteracts the tremendous damage it does to all of the parties involved?

The idea that society as a whole, or the individuals within the criminal justice system, are somehow "damaged" by punishing criminal offenders — especially violent, antisocial criminal offenders — seems ludicrous. American society doesn't have pay-per-view executions or floggings of criminals; it simply locks away uncivilized people. There's a good-faith debate about whether non-violent drug users should be warehoused in prisons, but this discussion crosses over into lunacy when it's suggested that society not only gains nothing but is "damaged" by punishing/locking up violent offenders or career non-violent offenders.

If I worked within the criminal justice system, I would take great pride in the fact that the dirty, thankless work I do helps to keep society safe from uncivilized behavior. It's unfortunate that any society needs a criminal justice system and prisons, but the notion that our current system is "intrinsically shameful" (per #106) is utterly absurd.

[Edit] I'll expand. To say that justice is solely about rehabilitation is to imply there is no victim to whom some form of restitution is required. To consider the matter solely in terms of the need for and goodness of rehabilitation is to consider the matter solely from the standpoint of society, while ignoring the specific individuals involved. This is a violation of any coherent principle of morality that has room for individuals. This is fundamentally immoral in the abstract and cruel satire in the real cases of actual victims.

That's only partially right. While restitution is an important part of justice, justice isn't solely about 'restitution.' Retribution -- punishment -- is about desert: giving the criminal what he is owed. It's a separate concept from restitution.

If we knew for a fact that the person would never reoffend again, and if all of his victims were gone -- let's say that the crime happened a while ago, and the victim and everyone associated with the victim (friends, family) had all died -- the criminal would still deserve punishment.

The idea that society as a whole, or the individuals within the criminal justice system, are somehow "damaged" by punishing criminal offenders — especially violent, antisocial criminal offenders — seems ludicrous.

The idea that society and individuals are not so damaged is ludicrous. Taking joy or satisfaction in the suffering of others is one of the most evil aspects of the human condition. We should be repulsed by the idea of suffering, accepting it only when it is the the only solution to a problem, and even then with great reluctance.

American society doesn't have pay-per-view executions or floggings of criminals; it simply locks away uncivilized people.

I do not absolve the American people of two responsibilities: firstly, to make a good-faith effort to civilize people who are uncivilized; and secondly, to ensure that the conditions are as free from abuse as is reasonably possible. Our current system does neither.

There's a good-faith debate about whether non-violent drug users should be warehoused in prisons, but this discussion crosses over into lunacy when it's suggested that society not only gains nothing but is "damaged" by punishing/locking up violent offenders or career non-violent offenders.

I think it's lunacy that you'd suggest otherwise. Also, the entire point I'd make about the War on Drugs is that there isn't a "good-faith" debate. The pro-War on Drugs side is indefensible morally, practically, and intellectually. The only support is based on ignorance of fact or bald-faced lies about the effects of drugs on the body, on the mind, and on society.

If we knew for a fact that the person would never reoffend again, and if all of his victims were gone -- let's say that the crime happened a while ago, and the victim and everyone associated with the victim (friends, family) had all died -- the criminal would still deserve punishment.

I disagree completely. If we knew with 100% certainty that a criminal would never re-offend, and punishment would not deter a single future crime, and the criminal were properly rehabilitated, there would be no reason to punish at all. (No good reason, that is. It would satisfy some primal, animal need for vengeance.)

I do not absolve the American people of two responsibilities: firstly, to make a good-faith effort to civilize people who are uncivilized

The responsibility to be civilized is on the individual, and society spends a ton of money on public education, poverty programs, etc. That's your change to get "civilized". Once you've committed a serious crime, that boat has sailed.

I disagree completely. If we knew with 100% certainty that a criminal would never re-offend, and punishment would not deter a single future crime, and the criminal were properly rehabilitated, there would be no reason to punish at all. (No good reason, that is. It would satisfy some primal, animal need for vengeance.)

Wrong. Respect for the victim remains, and demands punishment. Your calculus only cares about future victims, and, oddly, the criminal. It ignores the need to render justice to the victim.

Again, take the Nazi war criminal example, or Pol Pot. None of them were ever regaining political power. War criminals are not deterrable; they assume they're going to win. Your calculus leaves no grounds to punish them.