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.

So, as an example, if person X smashes into person Y's car and doesn't have auto insurance, the judge could sentence person X to be person Y's butler?

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.

Who said anything about "taking joy or satisfaction" in punishing criminals? I don't take joy in brushing my teeth or taking out the garbage, but those things need to be done. We're not talking about torturing some puppy who didn't know not to pee on the carpet; we're talking about punishing rapists and murderers. Your self-righteousness would be comical if it weren't so repugnant and potentially dangerous.

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

The American people do this already, in a wide variety of ways. It's unfortunate that society fails some people and that others are incorrigible, but this shouldn't obligate society to tolerate a never-ending series of crimes.

It takes years and years of good parenting and good schooling for people to become "regular citizens," as you put it earlier. Yet somehow, you seem to believe there's some magical, intensive program that can take a 19-year-old 10th-grade-dropout car thief and turn him into a law-abiding software consultant or architect within a month's incarceration time, or perhaps without any incarceration at all. It's the stuff of a fantasyland.

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,

You keep making this claim about "properly rehabilitated" without ever bothering to tell us your secret for accomplishing this. Societies have been trying to "rehabilitate" criminals since time immemorial, with very limited success. The unfortunate truth is, more often than not, criminality is like rabies: There are steps society can take to prevent it, but once it takes hold, it's all over but the crying.

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.)

Animals have no need for vengeance. It would satisfy the human need -- for justice, not vengeance. Punishment for crimes is a categorical imperative. To not punish the criminal cheats him as much as us.

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.

This is one of the two main sources of our disagreement. I don't think society has done remotely close to enough in this direction, and in fact, I think our current society encourages people to be uncivilized by condoning circumstances that make people desperate. This might be unavoidable for very poor societies, but we are remarkably resource-rich and have no such excuse.

Our society is such that there are very understandable reasons for people to be uncivilized. The idea that "that boat has sailed" is a very significant one of those reasons. It is also highly wasteful: many who commit crimes can be rehabilitated and can become very productive members of society, while locking people up is incredibly expensive (especially if we insist on a system that is properly respectful of human dignity with properly-trained administration and effective controls to prevent abuses).

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.

You keep saying that I don't respect the victim, which is grossly inaccurate. This is not a matter of moral disagreement; you are either not listening or deliberately misrepresenting my position. It is one thing to say that you believe my position doesn't provide justice, and yet another to suggest that it isn't something I care about at all. I give you the benefit of the doubt in the sense that I expect that you believe that actually making people suffer does good for society; I'm not suggesting that you just are a monster than enjoys the pain of others.

I do think you are conditioned by society to accept the legitimacy of suffering as an end in itself, rather than simply a means to that end, and I do think that such a position indulges a very dangerous impulse. The reason I'm continuing to talk about it is not because I expect to convince you otherwise, but because I feel a responsibility to combat support of that dangerous impulse.

I care very much about the victim, who deserves to be made whole as much as possible. I do not see making the criminal suffer as doing anything to help that victim, and in fact, I see it as directly harmful. It is my respect for the victim (as well as society, and yes, as well as the criminal, who is still a human being) that demands that I do not indulge a dangerous emotional response. I don't ignore the need to render justice to the victim. I acknowledge it, and reject the position that creating a new victim does anything to provide such justice.

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.

They can be held responsible for the damage they cause. It is unlikely that such people could, in a human lifetime, ever do enough good to erase the harm done to others. It is certain that they could provide more benefit to the world in some way other than rotting in a cage and costing money.

The story of redemption is much more beneficial to society than the story of a bad actor getting just desserts. If the actor is truly irredeemable, then prison is a reasonable solution, but the motive matters. "You're broken in a way that we can't fix, and you constitute a danger to society" is a morally legitimate approach to imprisonment. "You did bad things and you have to suffer until our thirst for vengeance is properly slaked" is not.

So, as an example, if person X smashes into person Y's car and doesn't have auto insurance, the judge could sentence person X to be person Y's butler?

Mandating direct service seems like an unreasonably uncomfortable situation for everyone. I'd imagine that the government would pay for person Y's damages, and then demand a portion of person X's earned money or labor until the debt is paid.

"You're broken in a way that we can't fix, and you constitute a danger to society" is a morally legitimate approach to imprisonment. "You did bad things and you have to suffer until our thirst for vengeance is properly slaked" is not.

The second sentence is basically a straw man, given our revolving-door justice system, parole boards, probation system, etc., that all exist despite high recidivism rates.

The first sentence basically describes what the U.S. already has, yet you and a few others seem to believe it's an "intrinsically shameful" system that's fundamentally flawed to the point of needing to be totally dismantled.

Strip away all of your self-righteousness and high-minded talk and we have ... nothing. You either have no solutions or you have super-secret solutions that you don't care to share with us.

Who said anything about "taking joy or satisfaction" in punishing criminals? I don't take joy in brushing my teeth or taking out the garbage, but those things need to be done.

I reject your position that forced suffering for its own sake is anything a society needs to do. It is something many people in our society want to do, because they are convinced (wrongly, in my opinion) that one person's hurt does another person some good.

You keep making this claim about "properly rehabilitated" without ever bothering to tell us your secret for accomplishing this. Societies have been trying to "rehabilitate" criminals since time immemorial, with very limited success. The unfortunate truth is, more often than not, criminality is like rabies: There are steps society can take to prevent it, but once it takes hold, it's all over but the crying.

That attitude is precisely why we have such a serious crime problem in this country. There's very little effort to determine why crime takes hold, or to address the conditions that encourage crime, and a lot of effort to prove to people that we're tough enough on bad actors. Our system is designed to inflict greater and greater harm on those that commit crimes, not to work harder and harder to turn bad actors into productive citizens.

There is no secret. Trained professionals evaluation the fitness of an individual to re-enter society. Since I'm grossly reducing the prison population by ending the War on Drugs, and advocating the end of many policies that drive people into desperation that leads them to commit crimes, we'll have plenty of money left over to do an adequate job of rehabilitation.

Even if some significant portion of criminals are irredeemably evil, and we have no choice but to incarcerate them, we are wasting tremendous resources on all of the ones who are redeemable. It would not take long for a car thief with adequate vocational training to give back more to society than the cost of his crime and the cost of his training, and then for the rest of that former thief's life, he's putting net positive value into society. It doesn't have to work all of the time to be better than what we have now.

Put aside the extreme nature of my position for a moment, and just consider how fundamentally broken our system is. We have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. Blacks and Latinos who commit comparable crimes with comparable criminal records face longer sentences than whites. Prisoners are raped, beaten, and become drug addicts. Even with mandatory minimums, we still continue to punish "rehabilitated" prisoners by effectively denying them gainful employment. (Of course, the prisoners aren't "rehabilitated" at all, most of the time. They leave prison less marketable as employees than they were when they entered.)

This is the result of our current policy on crime. Even if you think what we're doing is perfectly moral, I don't see how you can conclude that what we're doing is anything short of an absolute disaster.

Strip away all of your self-righteousness and high-minded talk and we have ... nothing. You either have no solutions or you have super-secret solutions that you don't care to share with us.

I don't have a perfect solution because none exists. I have a much better solution than what we're currently doing.

1) Fix the underlying conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place. People who have adequate food, shelter, healthcare, and education generally do not commit crimes.
2) End laws that criminalize victimless behavior.
3) Emphasize enforcement over punishment for the laws that should exist: certainty of consequence is a far better deterrent than severity of consequence.
4) Invest substantially more energy in putting prisoners in a position where they are able to contribute to society upon release: give them the skills they need to provide value, and a job in which they can use those skills.
5) Repeal mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws that rob the judicial system of its discretion in distinguishing individual cases.
6) Replace prison for non-violent, non-serial offenders with less severe penalties such as monitoring, halfway houses, and community service.
7) Refuse to accept inhumane prison conditions where prisoners are raped and contract preventable diseases such as Hepatitis C.

The money saved from #2 alone will more than pay for all the money spent in the other areas.

Mandating direct service seems like an unreasonably uncomfortable situation for everyone. I'd imagine that the government would pay for person Y's damages, and then demand a portion of person X's earned money or labor until the debt is paid.

That would be a much less entertaining premise for a TV show.

2) End laws that criminalize victimless behavior.

You seem to understand that certain actions (punishing prisoners severely) might be as damaging to society as a whole as they are to those directly affected (the prisoners). In other words, one has to take into account the larger societal impact.

And yet your reference to "victimless crimes" (which I presume means drug users and sellers) runs completely counter to your earlier expressed notion. If incarcerating a prisoner for the punishment can not only hurt him/her, but society, I would argue the same is true of drug users.

You argue that long-term incarceration of many criminals deprives society of their productive labor, and has negative ripple effects through society at large. I would argue that long-term drug use deprives society of the productive labor of the user, and has equally negative ripple effects through society at large. These crimes are not 'victimless' any more than throwing a car thief in prison under brutal conditions is 'victimless' because the thief is a criminal and thus not deserving of basic human rights.

And yet your reference to "victimless crimes" (which I presume means drug users and sellers) runs completely counter to your earlier expressed notion. If incarcerating a prisoner for the punishment can not only hurt him/her, but society, I would argue the same is true of drug users.

I would argue against that position. Responsible drug use is useful to society as a form of recreation, just like it's a net good to have an occasional drink or to occasionally eat unhealthy food simply because it is enjoyable. There is substantial evidence that people can responsibly use drugs that are currently classified as illegal, and in fact, be highly productive members of society. I know teachers, lawyers, and doctors who somewhat regularly use marijuana and infrequently use stronger drugs. We don't criminalize obesity or laziness, and both contribute to being less productive.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that drug use is harmful to society, it harms society more to criminalize drug use than it does to allow it. Any projected gains in productivity are dwarfed by the costs of criminalization.

You argue that long-term incarceration of many criminals deprives society of their productive labor, and has negative ripple effects through society at large.

That's an effect but it's not my motivation. I don't think individuals have a duty to society to be particularly productive, nor would I think that such a duty is appropriate for society to enforce even if it exists in a moral sense. I do think individuals have a duty to other individuals not to violate their autonomy and property rights; that's the price one pays for being in a society in the first place.

It's not even long-term incarceration that's the problem, because some criminals will need substantial time to be rehabilitated, and a small number of criminals will be irredeemable and need to be isolated from society for their lifetimes. It's incarceration of arbitrarily length for the sake of making the consequences of crime especially unpleasant.

Our system is designed to inflict greater and greater harm on those that commit crimes, not to work harder and harder to turn bad actors into productive citizens.

No, our current system is designed to keep uncivilized people — violent criminals and repeat non-violent criminals — away from society for longer and longer periods of time.

There is no secret. Trained professionals evaluation the fitness of an individual to re-enter society.

The current system has plenty of "trained professionals." The problem is that they're not miracle workers or magicians.

and advocating the end of many policies that drive people into desperation that leads them to commit crimes,

Such as?

we are wasting tremendous resources on all of the ones who are redeemable. It would not take long for a car thief with adequate vocational training to give back more to society than the cost of his crime and the cost of his training, and then for the rest of that former thief's life, he's putting net positive value into society. It doesn't have to work all of the time to be better than what we have now.

You seem unaware that America's jails and prisons have been offering vocational training for decades. Sort of like the horse that's led to water but refuses to drink, criminals don't lack access to job training. They lack the desire to use that training rather than engage in criminal activity.

Put aside the extreme nature of my position for a moment, and just consider how fundamentally broken our system is. We have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.

Once again, take away the non-violent drug offenders and the above is a feature, not a bug. Mexico and Haiti and Venezuela are suffering from a lack of prisons, not an abundance of them. The same is true all over the Americas.

Even with mandatory minimums, we still continue to punish "rehabilitated" prisoners by effectively denying them gainful employment. (Of course, the prisoners aren't "rehabilitated" at all, most of the time. They leave prison less marketable as employees than they were when they entered.)

This is pure tripe. Criminals aren't marketable because they've committed crimes, not because they spent time in prison.

This is the result of our current policy on crime. Even if you think what we're doing is perfectly moral, I don't see how you can conclude that what we're doing is anything short of an absolute disaster.

The system has plenty of problems, but it's not an "absolute disaster." Not by a long shot. An "absolute disaster" would be allowing hundreds of thousands of criminals to roam freely, on the asinine assumption that they'll miraculously change their criminal ways after a stern talking-to and a hug.

Once again, take away the non-violent drug offenders and the above is a feature, not a bug. Mexico and Haiti and Venezuela are suffering from a lack of prisons, not an abundance of them. The same is true all over the Americas.

What about Canada and Western Europe? Are those countries suffering from a lack of prisons?

Take away all of the non-violent drug offenders and you're taking away a huge percentage of the prison population. Nearly 20% of all state prisoners and over 50% of all federal prisoners are there for non-violent drug-related offenses (use/possession/sale/trafficking).

You seem unaware that America's jails and prisons have been offering vocational training for decades. Sort of like the horse that's led to water but refuses to drink, criminals don't lack for access to job training.

Criminals aren't marketable because they've committed crimes, not because they spent time in prison.

Why would you spend effort training yourself for a job when nobody will hire you? If a criminal is truly ready to re-enter society, there's no good reason for him to be any less employable. The reason criminals aren't marketable is because we insist on continuing to punish them once they're released. I don't see how you could possibly expect any sort of different result than what we're seeing.

An "absolute disaster" would be allowing hundreds of thousands of criminals to roam freely, on the asinine assumption that they'll miraculously change their criminal ways after a stern talking-to and a hug.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting that the criminal spend time with restricted freedom until he can demonstrate a good-faith desire to re-enter society and efforts in that direction that is convincing to a trained professional and payment of fines to compensate his victims. That's a big more than a stern talking-to and a hug.

I'm not sure why you're insisting that anything short of lengthy prison sentences is a free ride. I'm no more interested in criminals re-entering society as criminals than you are.

What about Canada and Western Europe? Are those countries suffering from a lack of prisons?

First of all, the crime numbers seem to be trending in the wrong direction in both of those places. Beyond that, you haven't listed a single thing that the U.S. could adopt from either place that would put downward pressure on the U.S. crime or incarceration rates.

Take away all of the non-violent drug offenders and you're taking away a huge percentage of the prison population. Nearly 20% of all state prisoners and over 50% of all federal prisoners are there for non-violent drug-related offenses (use/possession/sale/trafficking).

I know. I've conceded this over and over again.

Why would you spend effort training yourself for a job when nobody will hire you? If a criminal is truly ready to re-enter society, there's no good reason for him to be any less employable. The reason criminals aren't marketable is because we insist on continuing to punish them once they're released. I don't see how you could possibly expect any sort of different result than what we're seeing.

This is silly. Not hiring a person with a known criminal history is not "punishing" them, it's just common sense. Nobody wants a burglar cleaning their house or handling their business's cash drawer or doing just about anything else that requires a bare minimum of trust. This is just basic reality, basic rationale behavior.

A business that hires a person with 10 years of experience over a person with no experience isn't "punishing" the person with no experience. Likewise, a business that hires a person with a clean criminal history over a person with a history of crime isn't "punishing" the latter person; it's just making a common-sense decision.

It's one thing to say society should do more to prevent people from falling into a life of criminality, but I just don't have much sympathy for career criminals who have trouble finding well-paid employment. (I'm not saying such people should forever be unemployable; just that common sense says their job options will be limited. Perhaps there should be a workfare-type system for them, but I'm guessing that idea would get derided as a de facto chain gang without the chains.)

Bottom line, in a country that has fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage, it's not surprising in the least that people with criminal histories have trouble finding work.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting that the criminal spend time with restricted freedom until he can demonstrate a good-faith desire to re-enter society

What do you mean by "restricted freedom"? Are you talking house arrest, where criminals can sit at home all day watching TV? Or some sort of jail/work hybrid?

I'm not sure why you're insisting that anything short of lengthy prison sentences is a free ride.

It has nothing to do with wanting lengthy prison sentences just for the sake of lengthy prison sentences. It has to do with the simple fact that, throughout human history, the alternatives to prison haven't yielded much success when it comes to altering the behavior of the criminal-minded.

You keep saying that I don't respect the victim, which is grossly inaccurate. This is not a matter of moral disagreement; you are either not listening or deliberately misrepresenting my position. It is one thing to say that you believe my position doesn't provide justice, and yet another to suggest that it isn't something I care about at all. I give you the benefit of the doubt in the sense that I expect that you believe that actually making people suffer does good for society; I'm not suggesting that you just are a monster than enjoys the pain of others.

I'm not saying that you personally don't respect the victim, I'm saying your proposed system of punishment falls flat b/c you don't recognize the need for punishment, and if you forgo punishment, you disrespect the victim

If it is cheaper and more expedient for society, you are willing to let a criminal off with disproportionately light punishment. That is diminishing the humanity of the victim.


They can be held responsible for the damage they cause. It is unlikely that such people could, in a human lifetime, ever do enough good to erase the harm done to others. It is certain that they could provide more benefit to the world in some way other than rotting in a cage and costing money.

Disagree. There is nothing Pol Pot could have done for the world better than swing at the end of a rope.

You are 1000% too focused on the material. A pure utilitarian calculus does not serve justice or the human condition.

Our society is such that there are very understandable reasons for people to be uncivilized.

Oh please. Our society is one of the richest and most comfortable on earth, and demands almost nothing from its citizens.

Even if a person refuses to lift a finger for their own education or support, our society will provide you food, shelter, health care, etc.

People are uncivilized for the same reasons people have always been uncivilized; some people are evil, some are venal, some are lazy, and some are unable to control their urges. Nothing new.

1) Fix the underlying conditions that lead people to commit crimes in the first place. People who have adequate food, shelter, healthcare, and education generally do not commit crimes.

This is just total BS. I thought this "blame society for crime" nonsense died three decades ago.

Our inner city poor populations have material wealth matching or exceeding that of the middle class in 90% of countries. They commit crimes because they come from a dis-functional culture.

The inner city poor neighborhoods today are much, much more dangerous than those same poor neighborhoods during the Great Depression, when people really were hungry, cold, poorly clad, and had no healthcare to speak of.

I'm not saying that you personally don't respect the victim, I'm saying your proposed system of punishment falls flat b/c you don't recognize the need for punishment, and if you forgo punishment, you disrespect the victim

And I say that if you punish (for it's own sake), you disrespect the victim by pretending that you can actually make him or her more whole through the suffering of another.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. You think the "righteous" suffering of another is a net positive to individual and society, and I think it is a net negative. I understand your position and I think you understand mine.

If it is cheaper and more expedient for society, you are willing to let a criminal off with disproportionately light punishment. That is diminishing the humanity of the victim.

I would say "without disproportionately heavy punishment," which diminishes the humanity of everyone involved.

People are uncivilized for the same reasons people have always been uncivilized; some people are evil, some are venal, some are lazy, and some are unable to control their urges. Nothing new.

More than one in five black men will spend time in prison. That's an epidemic. To suggest that it is merely or primarily a result of a dysfunctional culture dances dangerously close to racism; I don't think that's your intention, but I do think you're unfairly removing some responsibility from society.

The inner city poor neighborhoods today are much, much more dangerous than those same poor neighborhoods during the Great Depression, when people really were hungry, cold, poorly clad, and had no healthcare to speak of.

There were a few other differences as well.

What do you mean by "restricted freedom"? Are you talking house arrest, where criminals can sit at home all day watching TV? Or some sort of jail/work hybrid?

It depends on the severity of the crime. For petty crimes, it might be enough simply to demand regular check-ins (like the current parole system, without the initial jail time). A monitored ankle bracelet is a step above that. Home confinement is a step above that. A halfway house a step above that. Serious crimes or serial moderate crimes demand more supervision and reduction in freedom, up to and including prison.

As I've said before, there's a need for restitution. A prisoner who doesn't take the responsibility to work off the cost of his crime ("sit at home all day and watch TV") isn't making a good-faith effort to reform. That doesn't sound like a rehabilitated criminal to me. A rehabilitated criminal acknowledges the wrong that has been committed and acts to provide some sort of benefit to make up for the harm caused. Someone who actively refuses to be rehabilitated needs to be isolated from society until willing to become civilized; in that respect, I don't think we're in very different places. (Bear in mind that the only criminal acts in my system would be ones that have victims.)

More than one in five black men will spend time in prison.

It's actually one in three.

That's an epidemic. To suggest that it is merely or primarily a result of a dysfunctional culture dances dangerously close to racism; I don't think that's your intention, but I do think you're unfairly removing some responsibility from society.

I hope this was just a bad choice of words in the middle of an otherwise civil discussion. Nothing in snapper's comment even hinted at racism, let alone "danced dangerously close to racism."

If you want to talk about "epidemics," talk about the breakdown of the family in inner cities. It might be more P.C. to blame "society," but all of these other pathologies have tracked upward along with the illegitimacy rate.

Put aside the extreme nature of my position for a moment

Do that, and you have no position worth talking about.

Your extremism and completely unrealistic view of people makes it impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Which in turn explains the roster of Primates who continue to engage with you.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I agree Crosby's position is "completely unrealistic," but I also find it oddly fascinating, in a car-crash kind of way. His is either the most naive or most optimistic view of humanity I've run across in a long time.

Which in turn explains the roster of Primates who continue to engage with you.

Fow what it's worth, I am completely on Crosby's side on this. But the amount of completely retarded strawmanning going on from the other side shows that they aren't interested in having a good faith discussion of the subject, so I don't think it's worth my time engaging them.

321, 322: fwiw, I actually think it's a pretty interesting conversation, and -- even nuttier -- come closer to Crosby's position than yours. And that's a bit of a change from my opinion before reading this conversation.

So, I guess the moral is: for all you political yakkers, yes it is actually possible to influence someone's opinion on (very rare) occasion. Frightening stuff.

Um, slow coke? Want it parcel post or passenger pigeon?

Glad to see you post, Veer.

But the amount of completely retarded strawmanning going on from the other side shows that they aren't interested in having a good faith discussion of the subject, so I don't think it's worth my time engaging them.

If this is representative of what your contribution would have been, thanks for sitting this one out.

Your extremism and completely unrealistic view of people makes it impossible to have a rational conversation with you.

I think others are representing my position as more far extreme than it is. I want criminals to held responsible for the harm they cause, in a way that compensates the victims as much as is possible and is a net good for society. I'm not suggesting that we tear down all of the prisons or that we give murderers a wag of the finger before releasing them.

I'm really suggesting three things:

1) Eliminate victimless crimes. This is a fairly typical libertarian position, shared by some liberals, and hardly "moonbat fringe."
2) Shift the primary focus of the criminal system from consequence-based solutions to rehabilitation and addressing root causes. That is a typically liberal position.
3) Eliminate the idea of suffering as restitution from the system. This is the most extreme aspect, but I'm not even the only one on this thread that supports it.

If this is representative of what your contribution would have been, thanks for sitting this one out.

Clearly, I should rise to the quality of contribution exemplified above.

2) Shift the primary focus of the criminal system from consequence-based solutions to rehabilitation and addressing root causes. That is a typically liberal position.

"Addressing root causes" is a political issue, not a criminal-justice issue. The criminal justice system exists to deal with offenders.

As for "rehabilitation," you've been beating that drum for two pages but still haven't offered a scintilla of information that explains how the Crosby System of Criminal Rehabilitation would yield better results than the rehabilitative efforts made by societies around the world over the past two centuries. You also seem to ignore the fact that the U.S. already has parole boards which periodically review inmates' suitability for release.

3) Eliminate the idea of suffering as restitution from the system. This is the most extreme aspect, but I'm not even the only one on this thread that supports it.

Aside from the death penalty, which applies to maybe 0.0000001 percent of all criminals, how exactly is "suffering" a central part of the present-day U.S. criminal justice system? Compared to the prisons just about anywhere else on the planet, U.S. prisons look like resorts, with air conditioning, cable TV, fitness centers, free education, conjugal visits, etc. I wouldn't want to spend the weekend at San Quentin, but it's not like people who get picked up with a joint in their pocket get tossed into prison and spend 5 years doing hard labor during the day and getting raped at night. For the most part, the worst prisons are full of the worst people. No one's serving time for shoplifting in Pelican Bay.

2) Shift the primary focus of the criminal system from consequence-based solutions to rehabilitation and addressing root causes. That is a typically liberal position.

I don't really think retribution is even necessary to have far harsher punishments than we currently do. We could simply say that recidivism rates show that a single instance of committing a crime is the most likely predictor of future likelihood to commit the same crime. (This is likely highly accurate.) Given that, all rapists will be castrated after the first offense, and all murder and manslaughter cases will be capital punishment. Done and done. No retribution, but the offender gives up their rights after the first offense, and it's not worth it to society to spend the resources on reducing recidivism when previous efforts have failed.

Personally, I prefer a more balanced approach. I don't think that anyone working in the current prison system feels like they can look into people's souls and figure out who will murder and rape again and who won't. Apparently you feel that's something we can achieve. I think it's unlikely in any near future. So there is a consistency in punishment to criminals based on statistical precedents and harm to society, rather than placing a big emphasis on rehab when the results are so inconsistent.

We could simply say that recidivism rates show that a single instance of committing a crime is the most likely predictor of future likelihood to commit the same crime. (This is likely highly accurate.)

No doubt. Something like 95 percent of felony crimes are committed by the same 1 or 2 percent of the population. There aren't many one-timers.

and it's not worth it to society to spend the resources on reducing recidivism when previous efforts have failed.

This is a big part of my position in this debate. In a world of limited resources, it seems repugnant to spend $30,000 or $40,000 per year per inmate to warehouse violent felons when hospitals are closing, kids are in bad schools, and society has a long list of other needs. If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, this money is better spent on the current generation of kids rather than on the current generation of criminals. Ninety-nine percent of the population has little or no trouble getting through life without committing violent felonies; society shouldn't waste so much of its resources on the 1 percent who do.

Aside from the death penalty, which applies to maybe 0.0000001 percent of all criminals, how exactly is "suffering" a central part of the present-day U.S. criminal justice system? Compared to the prisons just about anywhere else on the planet, U.S. prisons look like resorts, with air conditioning, cable TV, fitness centers, free education, conjugal visits, etc. I wouldn't want to spend the weekend at San Quentin, but it's not like people who get picked up with a joint in their pocket get tossed into prison and spend 5 years doing hard labor during the day and getting raped at night. For the most part, the worst prisons are full of the worst people. No one's serving time for shoplifting in Pelican Bay.

Compared to the prisons just about anywhere else on the planet, U.S. prisons look like resorts, with air conditioning, cable TV, fitness centers, free education, conjugal visits, etc. I wouldn't want to spend the weekend at San Quentin, but it's not like people who get picked up with a joint in their pocket get tossed into prison and spend 5 years doing hard labor during the day and getting raped at night.

Given the incidence of sexual assault or coercion (~20% of inmates), infection with hepatitis (20-40%), gang violence, and overcrowding, I don't see how you could have typed that with a straight face. California's prisons were so problematic that the courts ordered them to release prisoners for Eight Amendment violations.

Yes, US prisons are better than prisons in third-world countries. That's not a very high bar. If you're looking for a model of how I'd like our system to look, check out the prison systems in Scandinavian countries. They're imprisoning a bit more than a tenth of the percentage of the population that we're imprisoning.

No doubt. Something like 95 percent of felony crimes are committed by the same 1 or 2 percent of the population. There aren't many one-timers.

Far lower than that. If you're limiting your serious penalties to serial offenders, then we've got much less to disagree about. If you're limiting your serious penalties to serious and violent offenders, the results in my system are very similar to yours.

Serial, violent offenders still go to prison for a long time because it takes a long time to rehabilitate them with any confidence. They might not go to jail for as long as you'd want, but they're not getting out in six months either.

In a world of limited resources, it seems repugnant to spend $30,000 or $40,000 per year per inmate to warehouse violent felons when hospitals are closing, kids are in bad schools, and society has a long list of other needs. If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, this money is better spent on the current generation of kids rather than on the current generation of criminals.

Helping reform criminals is spending money on the current generation of children. We're restoring stable families. Children of long-term prisoners are far more likely to become prisoners themselves. We're saving money, not only through the ending of incarceration for victimless crimes, but also because rehabilitation and shorter sentences are cheaper than imprisonment. We're building a generally more productive society, which benefits everyone.

Ninety-nine percent of the population has little or no trouble getting through life without committing violent felonies; society shouldn't waste so much of its resources on the 1 percent who do.

I agree. We should be rehabilitating them and giving them generally shorter sentences because "lock them up for a lifetime" is a giant waste of money. I don't think you can make it much cheaper than it is right now without drastic reduction in quality of life for prisoners, and the quality of life is already too low. It is very expensive to humanely house prisoners, and to pay properly trained professionals to monitor them.

Unless you're taking the position that we don't need to behave humanely to our prisoners: we should just let prisoners rot in a cell, suffering from disease and sexual predation, until they do us the service of dying.

Yes, US prisons are better than prisons in third-world countries. That's not a very high bar. If you're looking for a model of how I'd like our system to look, check out the prison systems in Scandinavian countries. They're imprisoning a bit more than a tenth of the percentage of the population that we're imprisoning.

LOL. I'd like the model for U.S. living to look like the best area of Beverly Hills. Not very realistic.

If you're limiting your serious penalties to serious and violent offenders, the results in my system are very similar to yours.

Serial, violent offenders still go to prison for a long time because it takes a long time to rehabilitate them with any confidence. They might not go to jail for as long as you'd want, but they're not getting out in six months either.

I'm still waiting for you to explain "[your] system." I've seen a lot of high-minded, flowery talk about doing things "better," but absolutely no explanations of how or why it would yield better results.

Helping reform criminals is spending money on the current generation of children.

This is sophistry. Money being spent on criminals is money not being spent on children, or hospitals, or anything else.

We're restoring stable families.

This is nonsense, and also wishcasting. The vast majority of violent criminals come from inner cities, where the illegitimacy rate is upwards of 70 percent. The criminal justice system isn't tearing apart nuclear families that didn't exist in the first place.

Children of long-term prisoners are far more likely to become prisoners themselves.

Yes, because they lack parental supervision and/or learn criminality from their parents. This is a vicious cycle that must end, but it won't end by shortening the sentences of actual criminals.

We're saving money, not only through the ending of incarceration for victimless crimes,

The savings are only theoretical. If drugs are legalized, especially drugs beyond marijuana, a lot of minimum-security prisons would simply become minimum-security rehab centers.

but also because rehabilitation and shorter sentences are cheaper than imprisonment.

I agree. We should be rehabilitating them and giving them generally shorter sentences because "lock them up for a lifetime" is a giant waste of money.

There you go again, talking about "rehabilitation" and "shorter sentences" without offering a single word of explanation. If you have some miracle plan for rehabilitating prisoners and doing so with shorter prison sentences, you should publish your ideas somewhere. Probably every country on the planet would welcome such advice.

Absent a detailed explanation, I'm left to believe your entire "system" revolves around (1) magicians and miracle workers who can somehow peer into the hearts and minds of convicts and determine their future intentions, and (2) a miraculous, intensive program that can turn a 19-year-old 10th-grade dropout into a software consultant or architect with only a few months' incarceration (or maybe no incarceration at all). I wish I was more of an optimist, but I just don't see either of these as being remotely realistic.

"Addressing root causes" is a political issue, not a criminal-justice issue. The criminal justice system exists to deal with offenders.

The "criminal justice system" is a political issue, you mindless git.

Joe is offended by your thoughtless off-handed reference to the murdered Mia Zapata.

"Addressing root causes" is a political issue, not a criminal-justice issue. The criminal justice system exists to deal with offenders.

The "criminal justice system" is a political issue, you mindless git.

By the time someone rapes or murders someone, it's too late for either the political or criminal justice systems to "address root causes." The Smartest Man Alive shouldn't need such a simple concept explained to him.

Of course, one wouldn't think The Smartest Man Alive would need to resort to ad hominem attacks in every post, but apparently one would be wrong.

Fow what it's worth, I am completely on Crosby's side on this. But the amount of completely retarded strawmanning going on from the other side shows that they aren't interested in having a good faith discussion of the subject, so I don't think it's worth my time engaging them.

This is just totally bananas.

This is just totally bananas.

So's your face.

Since Crosby hasn't been back through yet ...

LOL. I'd like the model for U.S. living to look like the best area of Beverly Hills. Not very realistic. — #335

This was needlessly snarky, or at least it probably reads snarkier than I intended it. My point was simply that the U.S. already spends something like $32,000 per year per inmate for a system Crosby describes as an "absolute disaster," so I don't even want to imagine how much more the country would have to spend on a per-inmate basis to bring things up to where Crosby apparently wants them, even if all the non-violent drug offenders were released.

There you go again, talking about "rehabilitation" and "shorter sentences" without offering a single word of explanation. If you have some miracle plan for rehabilitating prisoners and doing so with shorter prison sentences, you should publish your ideas somewhere. Probably every country on the planet would welcome such advice.

It's not a miracle plan. I'm looking to make our system more like the prison systems in Western European countries or Canada, which are less harsh and less populated than American prisons. These aren't magical places that have perfect solutions to crime, but they are places that have less crime than America, and they are places that have a different set of priorities in their approach to criminal justice. They are more rehabilitation-focused and they have shorter sentences.

I don't see how it's "not very realistic" to run a criminal justice system like that of many other first-world nations. I can't give you much more specific details than I've already provided for solving such a complicated problem as I am not a therapist or criminal psychologist. There's evidence that we can do a much better job than we're doing here in America.

I gave you quite a few of the details of what to do: eliminate victimless crimes, ensure that prisoners are able to fully integrate into society upon release (job skills and employment opportunities), eliminate mandatory minimums, improve prison conditions to avoid sexual assault and disease, use alternate (and less expensive) forms of freedom restriction (surveillance, monitoring, mandatory check-ins, halfway houses, etc.). That's pretty specific as to how it would work.

Why would it work?

Because it's much, much cheaper. The simple removal of the victimless crimes would save tens of billions of dollars. At $30k per inmate per year, shortened sentences would also save a tremendous amount of money.

Also, because more prisoners would be encouraged to re-enter society as productive citizens. Having a set of marketable skills and being able to provide for oneself and one's family is a very strong deterrent for criminal activity. This would reduce recidivism.

Finally, even if it did no better than our current system, and the money balanced perfectly, we would be behaving in a more fundamentally decent way toward our prisoners, which is not only good for them, but also good for us. The system of vengeance that we currently live under pollutes our moral development as a society and a species.

Right now, the United States spends more money imprisoning more of its citizens than any other nation in the world. Our prisons are currently run in ways that run counter to basic human decency: inmates are assaulted and given inadequate medical treatment. Even our "reformed" prisoners are put in a position where they will be strongly disadvantaged for a lifetime, often unable to find productive employment that will encourage them to be law-abiding citizens. We know precisely where this system leads: more people in prison, costing more money, and more disconnected from society; it demands a fix.

By the time someone rapes or murders someone, it's too late for either the political or criminal justice systems to "address root causes."

Luckily we live in a world where you standing over said rapist or murderer and kicking him in the balls repeatedly brings his victim back to life or something.

The savings are only theoretical. If drugs are legalized, especially drugs beyond marijuana, a lot of minimum-security prisons would simply become minimum-security rehab centers.

You can pay for a lot of rehab centers with tens of billions of dollars. Rehab centers are cheaper than prisons, and the number of people that would need rehab would be substantially smaller than the number of people who are currently imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses.

I think you're completely divorced from the magnitude of the waste in the War on Drugs. I also think you're completely divorced from the reality of drugs. Most people don't take drugs and transform into addiction-crazed criminals or useless, non-productive blobs.

There is no secret. Trained professionals evaluation the fitness of an individual to re-enter society.

There's no evidence that anyone can do this job better than phrenologists can.

Even with mandatory minimums, we still continue to punish "rehabilitated" prisoners by effectively denying them gainful employment. (Of course, the prisoners aren't "rehabilitated" at all, most of the time. They leave prison less marketable as employees than they were when they entered.)

Well, regulatory and tort reform would help with that. The government denies occupational licenses to many people with criminal records -- based not on any actual connection between the crime and the occupation (e.g., embezzler and CPA, or DUI and bus driver) but solely on the basis of restricting entry into the occupation -- and the government regulates more and more professions every year, restricting the jobs available to released prisoners. Then the government encourages people to sue the deep pockets, regardless of actual responsibility, whenever there's an injury; if an employee of yours has a criminal record and injures someone he came into contact with through work, you will, unquestionably, be sued. So it's safer not to hire someone with a criminal record.

6) Replace prison for non-violent, non-serial offenders with less severe penalties such as monitoring, halfway houses, and community service.

So a guy who holds up a liquor store gets prison; Bernie Madoff gets a dorm room, an ankle bracelet, and some time in a soup kitchen.

You argue that long-term incarceration of many criminals deprives society of their productive labor, and has negative ripple effects through society at large. I would argue that long-term drug use deprives society of the productive labor of the user, and has equally negative ripple effects through society at large. These crimes are not 'victimless' any more than throwing a car thief in prison under brutal conditions is 'victimless' because the thief is a criminal and thus not deserving of basic human rights.

Yes, they are victimless (and thus not crimes at all). Setting aside the issue of whether drug use per se is closely linked to lack of productive labor, the mythological "society" has no claim on anybody's "productive labor," so it isn't "depriving" anyone of anything not to provide it. (Otherwise majoring in Art History or Women's Studies ought to be a felony.)

I think you're completely divorced from the magnitude of the waste in the War on Drugs. I also think you're completely divorced from the reality of drugs. Most people don't take drugs and transform into addiction-crazed criminals or useless, non-productive blobs.

I'm pretty sure a significant portion of the debaters in this thread get their beliefs about drugs and their effects from a series of Lifetime melodramas.

I'm with Crosby on this discussion as well. However, in addition to the other purposes of punishment that people have listed above, there is another one, which is expressing society's moral disapproval of the actions in question. This is similar to deterrence, in that the purpose is to prevent future crime by others, but it's a bit different. Making something illegal is part of our way of telling people that the illegal action is wrong, and the worse the punishment, the more wrong it is.

Well, regulatory and tort reform would help with that.

You will not get any argument from me here.

So a guy who holds up a liquor store gets prison; Bernie Madoff gets a dorm room, an ankle bracelet, and some time in a soup kitchen.

Bernie Madoff is pretty clearly a serial offender. Still, if you liquidate his assets to pay the people he cheated and demand service until he can make up the difference, I don't see much value in him also spending time in a cell.

The guy who holds up a liquor store is more dangerous, while Madoff is more damaging. The criminal system addresses danger; the tort system addresses damage.

I'm with Crosby on this discussion as well. However, in addition to the other purposes of punishment that people have listed above, there is another one, which is expressing society's moral disapproval of the actions in question.

I would say that this is a very valid concern, but not one that should be addressed through criminality. Society can and does demonstrate disapproval through individual action.

Another devil's advocate kind of thought, along the lines of #348 above . . .

I'm with you on the immorality of vengeance as a function of the penal system, but have you considered the possible utilitarian value of it? Given that our viewpoint is clearly in the minority, and that many of those who disagree do so with tremendous vigor and emotion, it seems to me that, if the state did not exact vengeance on convicted criminals, vigilantism would soar. To be clear, I'm not saying that snapper or Joe would be in those mobs, but (1) those more prone to violence and with less to lose would be, and (2) many otherwise reasonable people might not be too bothered by it.

In a country with spreading stand-your-ground laws, would you be totally shocked if society responded to your proposed changes with something like "Protecting the Children" laws that largely decriminalize vigilantism, if done "proportionally and with reasonable concern for the community?"

All else equal, in some ways I'm actually more troubled by the state engaging in vengeance than private mobs, but I'm guessing that all else is not equal, and that having the state (mostly) satisfy the populace's bloodlust the resulting vengeance is more accurate, proportional, and hopefully limited.

As suspected, Crosby's #342 proves his whole "system" is little more than pie-in-the-sky, fantasy nonsense. Crosby wants us to lock up fewer people for less time and just trust that it will reduce crime and lower recidivism rates, despite a couple hundred years of evidence to the contrary. After almost three pages of this nonsense, all Crosby can do is say, "more like Western Europe, more like Western Europe." That's not a plan, it's just silliness.

Why would it work?

Because it's much, much cheaper. ...

LOL. So there's a better system that yields better results, but Americans steadfastly refuse to implement it?

It reminds me of Obamacare's promise to provide more and better services to more people at less cost. I didn't think anyone actually believed such claims.

I also think you're completely divorced from the reality of drugs. Most people don't take drugs and transform into addiction-crazed criminals or useless, non-productive blobs.

Right, and no people who get caught smoking a joint get tossed into San Quentin to serve a 10-year sentence. You seem to believe 95 percent of America's prisoners are hapless pot smokers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Bernie Madoff is pretty clearly a serial offender. Still, if you liquidate his assets to pay the people he cheated and demand service until he can make up the difference, I don't see much value in him also spending time in a cell.

Just when I thought this discussion couldn't get any dumber ...

What legal activity could Bernie Madoff possibly perform that would come close to making his victims whole? If Bernie Madoff doesn't deserve prison, then no one does.

LOL. So there's a better system that yields better results, but Americans steadfastly refuse to implement it?

I'm not sure what you're LOLing at, but yes. Even you acknowledge that by saying you don't favor locking up nonviolent drug possessors.

Right, and most people who get caught smoking a joint don't get tossed into San Quentin to serve a 10-year sentence. You seem to believe 95 percent of America's prisoners are hapless pot smokers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Thanks for the straw man, but nobody here thinks that. Furthermore, I don't care how much the person possessed or even how much they were dealing. Non-violent drug offenders shouldn't be put in jail unless they are guilty of other crimes.

Furthermore, I don't care how much the person possessed or even how much they were dealing. Non-violent drug offenders shouldn't be put in jail unless they are guilty of other crimes.

I think there's a pretty good argument that no drug-dealer, beyond maybe a small scale pot grower/dealer, is truly non-violent. They are either part of a larger criminal enterprise or network that engages in substantial violence and/or they distribute a product that leads to lots of violence, and well as direct physical harm to the users (take a look at a typical meth-head).

I can get with you on no jail time for simple possession, but drugs dealers are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Of course, one wouldn't think The Smartest Man Alive would need to resort to ad hominem attacks in every post, but apparently one would be wrong.

I don't know, I'm starting to come around to the idea that simply insulting you as a git just might be the best way to go, cause pretty much all you are doing now is providing Crosby with a convenient neanderthal strawman to argue against.

Of course I could be wrong (alas I frequently am), I used to think the same about DMN, but every now and then he does have something useful to say...

I think there's a pretty good argument that no drug-dealer, beyond maybe a small scale pot grower/dealer, is truly non-violent.

Even if this is the case, we *know* how to fix this problem. Al Capone went the hell away when we ended the idiotic prohibition of alcohol.

#345 Actually I'd put this more strongly. The trained professionals don't seem to do all that well.


Useful intro to the topic

Some of the money quotes:

Currently, the best predictive tools score only about 0.75 to 0.85 for ‘sensitivity’ and ‘specificity’.

In reality, risk assessment tools like RM2000 do not produce a ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ result but instead categorises people into low, medium, high and very-high risk groups for re-offending. However, anyone with a ‘high’ or ‘very-high’ risk assessment is likely to have more scrutiny from a parole board or MAPPA panel than someone assessed as only a ‘low’ or ‘medium risk’. This runs the possibility of their chances of release or reintegration into society being compromised by an assessment which has a fairly questionable scientific basis. So next time someone conducts a risk assessment on you, it might be worth asking them what the ‘positive predictive value’ is of any tool they might be using – chances are they won’t understand!

Really, Snapper - that's your argument? That CB's system "fails" when you consider genocidal maniacs like Pol Pot and Josef Mengele?

Even if this is the case, we *know* how to fix this problem. Al Capone went the hell away when we ended the idiotic prohibition of alcohol.


Right. There's nothing inherently evil about selling drugs when they are legal. A bar, liquor store or winery is not a criminal enterprise.

I think there's a pretty good argument that no drug-dealer, beyond maybe a small scale pot grower/dealer, is truly non-violent. They are either part of a larger criminal enterprise or network that engages in substantial violence

...because it's illegal. You don't see Coors and Anheuser-Busch, or RJR Nabisco and Altria, fighting gun battles, do you? No; when they have disputes, they go to court. But when it's illegal, that can't happen, so the only way to settle disputes is extralegally. (And, no, it's not because of the nature of the product -- because alcohol dealers -- a/k/a bootleggers -- used to be violent.)

and/or they distribute a product that leads to lots of violence, and well as direct physical harm to the users (take a look at a typical meth-head).

By "typical meth-head," do you actually mean a typical one? Or do you mean the atypical one that they make afterschool specials about?

Even if this is the case, we *know* how to fix this problem. Al Capone went the hell away when we ended the idiotic prohibition of alcohol.

Al Capone went the "hell away" because he went to jail and when he got out he was too sick to do anything. the "mob" OTOH did not go the "hell away" it simply utilized it's skills in providing the public with banned products and services by providing other banned products and services.

Right. There's nothing inherently evil about selling drugs when they are legal.

There's nothing inherently evil about selling drugs when they are illegal. There may be something inherently evil about making a morally neutral act such as selling drugs criminal for no reason other than the fact that Richard Nixon really hated hippies.

The "evil" of the modern drug market comes from the fact that it is "illegal" and thus draws exclusively on the criminally minded to fill the MASSIVE DEMAND IN THE MARKET FOR DRUGS.

Yet somehow, you seem to believe there's some magical, intensive program that can take a 19-year-old 10th-grade-dropout car thief and turn him into a law-abiding software consultant or architect within a month's incarceration time, or perhaps without any incarceration at all. It's the stuff of a fantasyland.

I actually know some upstanding productive citizens who were 10th grade drop out car thieves at 19. I don't think they did any hard time for it though.

And this point is a couple days old - but you maintained that crime is cause by "bad men" not people in bad situations. OK, I will stipulate that it's probably a bit of both. The problem is THE SYSTEM does a particularly horrible job of sorting this out.

I don't know, I'm starting to come around to the idea that simply insulting you as a git just might be the best way to go, cause pretty much all you are doing now is providing Crosby with a convenient neanderthal strawman to argue against.

Gee, another internet tough guy hiding behind an alias. Don't forget to high-five someone.

***

I'm not sure what you're LOLing at, but yes. Even you acknowledge that by saying you don't favor locking up nonviolent drug possessors.

Maybe you joined the discussion late, but I conceded, in one of my very first comments in this discussion, that it seems foolish to warehouse non-violent drug users in prisons. Except as a diversion, I don't know why Crosby keeps trying to use that as a cudgel.

My objection is to Crosby's attempts to use drug offenders as an excuse to reduce or eliminate prison sentences across the board, including for violent criminals whom he claims, without a word of explanation, can be "rehabilitated" and "rejoin society as regular citizens." I'm also still waiting to hear how Crosby intends to "rehabilitate" such people faster and cheaper than is happening today, but he seems to have no such ideas. In the real world, one usually needs a better idea in order to yield better results, but Crosby wants to fast-forward to the "better results" part without the pesky details of the better idea.

There is no secret. Trained professionals evaluation the fitness of an individual to re-enter society.

So "trained professionals" are good at this. I see.

Is it too AOL to say LOL?

Even if this is the case, we *know* how to fix this problem. Al Capone went the hell away when we ended the idiotic prohibition of alcohol.

Except that ignores the likely societal costs of increased hard drug usage. The right policy should seek to balance the costs of that vs. the costs of prohibition/enforcement.

I don't think a one-size-fits-all legalization strikes the right balance.

Bernie Madoff is pretty clearly a serial offender. Still, if you liquidate his assets to pay the people he cheated and demand service until he can make up the difference, I don't see much value in him also spending time in a cell.

Let's say you don't send Bernie to jail:

1: What does that say to Bernie's non-criminal competitors in the financial services industry, "see not only did you lose customers/business to lying stealing ratfuck bastards like Bernie (and Nick Cosmo, and Jame Nicholson and...), but in the end you were wrong n9t to be a lying stealing ratfuck bastard"

2: What does that say to Bernie's victims? Well OK, he stile your lifesavings? "What are you complaining about he's going to pay you back 1 cent on the dollar every month until you get 10% back. Now if he stole your car, well then if he did that we'd send him to jail, especially if he did it to feed his coke habit...."

You need some form of deterrence, and you need some-type of carrot. People have to feel there is some reward for not doing what Madoff did, even if you lose customers now- you will get them in the end because you were the honest one. You also need people to know that if you do what Madoff did you will go to jail- oh sure some people will steal anyway, but it doesn't mean that some are not deterred.

If you are not going to stick Bernie in jail, what is the point of criminalizing his behavior in the first place?

Also, if people do not believe that criminals are being punished, that the general public is being protected, well then you will have people taking taking matters in their own hands - I mean you get that anyway, but it would really get out of hand if the Govt. explicitly threw up its hands and said, "well there is no point in putting so and so in jail, he;s not going to do this again.."

Really, Snapper - that's your argument? That CB's system "fails" when you consider genocidal maniacs like Pol Pot and Josef Mengele?

No, I think it fails in general by refusing to acknowledge that punishment is necessary to redress the imbalance caused by violent crime.

I use the war criminals as an extreme example, b/c everyone knows instinctually that letting Herman Goering retire to rural Bavaria is morally noxious. Letting a common murderer off without severe punshment is just as noxious, but harder to see. I believe "reductio ad absurdum" is the term of art.

Right. There's nothing inherently evil about selling drugs when they are legal. A bar, liquor store or winery is not a criminal enterprise.

This quite likely is right, but the drug-legalization crowd massively oversells this aspect. People who don't mind breaking laws to sell drugs aren't doing so out of pure libertarian principle; they do so out of a penchant for criminality. If drugs were legalized tomorrow, the current drug cartel members and gang members and street-level dealers aren't going to shrug their shoulders and go apply for jobs at Walmart or enroll in vocational school. That's a fantasy.

Also, the only way drugs will ever be legalized is if the government imposes a high tax on them, and that will provide pricing opportunities to the same street-level, illegal drug dealers of today. They'll lose some business, but they'll still have plenty. (And the ensuing turf wars, over a smaller market, could be worse than the ones we have today.)

Gee, another internet tough guy hiding behind an alias. Don't forget to high-five someone.

Will a low five do?

There's nothing inherently evil about selling drugs when they are illegal. There may be something inherently evil about making a morally neutral act such as selling drugs criminal for no reason other than the fact that Richard Nixon really hated hippies.

The "evil" of the modern drug market comes from the fact that it is "illegal" and thus draws exclusively on the criminally minded to fill the MASSIVE DEMAND IN THE MARKET FOR DRUGS.

Except you'll never have legitimate corporations involved in the distribution of hard drugs. The liability lawsuits would make the cigarette cos. blanch.

A friend of mine went to jail a week ago. Not for the first time. For the first time he did hard time (maybe a year or two) for assault and battery (I think) - in his words "Defending a Lady". I don't ask him the details. He's 29. He got picked up on 2 outstanding warrants for probation or parole violation that were 4 and 6 years old and was thrown into Santa Rita.

He is a talented and funny man, works as a chef in San Francisco. I hope he can put his life back together after he gets this nastyness sorted out.

So "trained professionals" are good at this. I see.

Maybe not now, but in the 24th century they will be, and the there will just be a handful of individuals left who cannot be rehabilitated, and at such time they'll be sequestered on their very own planetoid, until such time that really cool rehabilitative drugs are available.

To be fair shrinks are probably no worse at predicting future criminal propensity than parole boards are.

I don't think a one-size-fits-all legalization strikes the right balance.

I don't think many people are suggesting that at all. Alcohol and tobacco are both legal but highly regulated, with attempts to address the particular risks of the individual drug. You can still smoke and drive, and you can drink in a poorly ventilated room with pregnant women in it, but not vice-versa.

It would be messy at first, and the laws would be unfortunately complicated -- it would be hard to devise a roadside test to prevent people from driving on LSD that doesn't also ensnare people who are just a little crazy -- but it's better than the current system.

Except that ignores the likely societal costs of increased hard drug usage.

Except ending Prohibition did not lead to increased hard alcohol usage, in fact it had the OPPOSITE effect, many people who drank really godawful 80+ proof stuff, went back down to stuff like beer and wine.

If drugs were legalized tomorrow, the current drug cartel members and gang members and street-level dealers aren't going to shrug their shoulders and go apply for jobs at Walmart or enroll in vocational school. That's a fantasy.

Well, at least you're not pretending to believe in market distribution and the laws of supply and demand any more.

Except you'll never have legitimate corporations involved in the distribution of hard drugs. The liability lawsuits would make the cigarette cos. blanch.

Well, first, we're not necessarily talking about "hard drugs." Pot is softer than nicotine or alcohol. Of course, the harder drugs would be sold on a tighter regulated market, on some model similar to nicotine and alcohol. Which, by the way, are still sold bye "legitimate corporations" in case you haven't noticed.

The primary distinction between pot and tobacco is that pot does not have a long history of being laced with a much harder drug (nicotine) in order to enable addiction in the user.

Well, at least you're not pretending to believe in market distribution and the laws of supply and demand any more.

To the contrary. Supply and demand is precisely why drug legalization, combined with a high excise tax, wouldn't be a panacea.

Except you'll never have legitimate corporations involved in the distribution of hard drugs.

So Bacardi Ltd is not a "legitimate" corporation?

If drugs were legalized tomorrow, the current drug cartel members and gang members and street-level dealers aren't going to shrug their shoulders and go apply for jobs at Walmart or enroll in vocational school. That's a fantasy.

Sure, but take the drugs and money away from those guys and they will be a lot less powerful. Let the police focus on the real crimes instead of the victimless ones and the cops will have a lot more resources to fight those cartels.

It just seems stupid to voluntarily consign a portion of the economy to criminals. Especially when the product has inelastic demand.

EDIT: Not to mention the other illegal activity that gets financed with drug money. Remember the PSAs after 9/11 about how drug money finances terrorism, so if you do drugs you're supporting Al Qaeda? I remember seeing those commercials and thinking, "Legalize the drugs then, and the terrorists won't have any money!"

To the contrary. Supply and demand is precisely why drug legalization, combined with a high excise tax, wouldn't be a panacea.

Exactly. The end of Prohibition didn't end moonshining.

Except ending Prohibition did not lead to increased hard alcohol usage, in fact it had the OPPOSITE effect, many people who drank really godawful 80+ proof stuff, went back down to stuff like beer and wine.

Correct, but that's because alcohol was culturally ingrained in society over thousands of years. So, people ignored the law. Plus, it's really easy to make, and home brewing (for personal use) wasn't illegal, so the big breweries could still legally sell the materials to make beer, and wine, and whiskey.

Heroin, or cocaine, or LSD, or PCP, don't have that ingrained status. The illegality and difficulty of getting it probably stop lots of people from using.

Especially when the product has inelastic demand.

That's just silly. You don't think more people would use cocaine if it were legal, and cost $3/line? That seems inconsistent with the rave reviews it gets from the "hell of a drug" crowd.

To the contrary. Supply and demand is precisely why drug legalization, combined with a high excise tax, wouldn't be a panacea.


Nobody says it would be a ####### panacea. But it would be better than the current system, in which something like 400,000 people are in jail on drug-related offenses at a cost of about $10 billion a year, 10,000+ people are being killed a year in Mexican drug violence, and people are *still doing* all those drugs -- there's little evidence that these policies have been effective at anything other than driving profits into the hands of drug dealers.

This is one of those issues where no amount of dry reasoning about fiscal sanity and personal choice/responsibility is going to get through the right wingers purity complex.

and personal choice/responsibility

This rhetoric rings hollow b/c (except for the libertarians) the left wingers refuse to apply this to any other area of human existence beyond sex and drugs.

This rhetoric rings hollow b/c (except for the libertarians) the left wingers refuse to apply this to any other area of human existence beyond sex and drugs.

The fact that you're not listening doesn't mean they're not saying.

That's just silly. You don't think more people would use cocaine if it were legal, and cost $3/line? That seems inconsistent with the rave reviews it gets from the "hell of a drug" crowd.

My point about inelasticity was at the other end of the spectrum -- that you are letting criminals control the distribution of a product that people are chemically dependent on. You're giving them a lot of power over people.

Sometimes I wonder whether people would do fewer drugs if drugs didn't have that cachet of being illegal and rebellious. I'm the wrong guy to ask -- I've never done illegal drugs and hard drugs have never had never had any appeal to me. But someone trying cocaine doesn't mean that they are going to turn into a violent addict.

In addition to everything else I mentioned, there just seems to be a massive cognitive dissonance in our society when it comes to these issues. We elected a president who admits to having tried pot and cocaine. We accept that the vast majority of our politicians and other authority figures have at least done the former at some point. But if any of them had been *caught* doing it, they probably couldn't even get hired for my job.

This rhetoric rings hollow b/c (except for the libertarians) the left wingers refuse to apply this to any other area of human existence beyond sex and drugs.

No kidding. Aside from Ray and David, most of the other pro-legalization people in this thread are charlatans. Liberals have no problem banning smoking, banning trans fats, punishing parents whose kids bring the "wrong" snack or lunch to school, etc. But mention drugs, and they're suddenly doctrinaire libertarians. It's comical.

The fact that you're not listening doesn't mean they're not saying.

OK, where are all the left-wing voices defending my right not to buy health insurance?

Liberals have no problem banning smoking, banning trans fats, punishing parents whose kids bring the "wrong" snack or lunch to school, etc. But mention drugs, and they're suddenly doctrinaire libertarians. It's comical.

Strawman sees strawmen everywhere...

I kid, besides there is no one here for me to high five.

and personal choice/responsibility

This rhetoric rings hollow b/c (except for the libertarians) the left wingers refuse to apply this to any other area of human existence beyond sex and drugs.

I'm sure we could find other areas that the left wingers apply personal choice to, if we looked hard enough.

I mean, Obamacare gives certain people who are not part of their pet exempted class the "personal choice" to purchase coverage or face a penalty. So there's that.

While there's a minor lull in the proceedings, here's a little real-world scenario for Crosby & Co.; I'm curious how their "system" of criminal justice would handle such a crime/situation:

Yesterday, I hopped the bus over to the beach for a quick late dinner, etc. Since half of humanity seemed to be at the beach for Easter, there was a long line for the return shuttles back to the city when I decided to head back.

When I was about halfway through the line, I found myself standing next to a police car that was parked with its flashers on. A police officer was casually leaning against the car, taking in the scene. To say this is a low-crime area is an understatement; his main responsibility seemed to be to make sure cars didn't park in or otherwise block the loading zone.

Suddenly, a very minor skirmish breaks out about 25 feet ahead of me, and two guys hustle a third guy directly over to the police officer who was still leaning against his car. It turns out Guy #1 had casually pickpocketed Guy #2, and Guys #3 and #4, having noticed it, immediately reclaimed the wallet and delivered the thief to the waiting police officer, all within the span of maybe 5 seconds.

Having been caught red-handed, Guy #1 was immediately placed under arrest. He obviously deserved to be arrested, but I still got that sinking feeling in my stomach as I watched him be frisked, handcuffed, and then stuffed into the police car for the trip to jail. (He didn't go quietly; it took a second police officer to get him into the car.)

Still standing in line with nothing better to do, my mind immediately drifted to this thread: How would the Crosby System deal with such an offender?

Obviously, a crime had been committed, but there was no violence or weapons involved, and the victim had immediately been made whole (wallet returned). I didn't see the contents of the wallet, but it was probably "only" a few hundred dollars, some ID, etc. Under the Crosby system, should the police officer have said, "Hey, don't do that again!" and sent the guy on his way? Or should the guy be jailed, but with the expectation that he'd be "rehabilitated" after a very brief stay, perhaps only a night or two? If society is "damaged" by locking up criminals, as Crosby & Co. claim, what exactly should society do with and/or for this guy, and how quickly should society be expected to do it?

I mean, Obamacare gives certain people who are not part of their pet exempted class the "personal choice" to purchase coverage or face a penalty. So there's that.

You mean the Republican-created idea of personal mandate? The one that John McCain and that Tina Fey lookalike that he chose as running mate were floating in the 2008 presidential campaign as the solution to the healthcare crisis? The one that Republicans until 2010 claimed as their own idea? The one Obama settled on because he thought it had a chance of getting through Congress with bipartisan support?

Ray you seem to have a liberal bias that blinds you to the realities of politics, but what is it with conservatives and republicans on this issue? The individual mandate was the Republicans' own idea. Own up to it. I'm a liberal and I don't like the individual mandate. I like a lot of other things in the health care law, so I can live with it.

You mean the Republican-created idea of personal mandate? The one that John McCain and that Tina Fey lookalike that he chose as running mate were floating in the 2008 presidential campaign as the solution to the healthcare crisis? The one that Republicans until 2010 claimed as their own idea? The one Obama settled on because he thought it had a chance of getting through Congress with bipartisan support?

Unconstitutional Republican ideas are still unconstitutional.

393 — A lot of the debate over the mandate is just politics, but let's not kid ourselves: Obamacare, as written, is a massive example of adverse selection that was deliberately written as a backdoor path to single-payer. Why would any healthy person pay $8,000 or $10,000 for insurance when they could simply pay an annual $700 penalty and then buy "insurance" when they get sick?

Under the Crosby system, should the police officer have said, "Hey, don't do that again!" and sent the guy on his way? Or should the guy be jailed, but with the expectation that he'd be "rehabilitated" after a very brief stay, perhaps only a night or two? If society is "damaged" by locking up criminals, as Crosby & Co. claim, what exactly should society do with and/or for this guy, and how quickly should society be expected to do it?

Not sure if I'm part of Co., but to most of your questions I answer, "no, I would not favor that stupid thing you think I would." I'm starting to believe that you are both arguing in good faith, and engaging in incredible amounts of strawmanning, if that's possible. That is, I think you really believe you're not creating strawmen. Or I'm misreading Crosby, and what he's saying is a lot more whackadoodle than I took it.

"Prison sentences are often too long" =/ "All prison sentences should be reduced 99% and convicts get to drive Joe Kehoskie's car on Tuesday afternoons"

Sorry, I suppose that was a strawman.

Why would any healthy person pay $8,000 or $10,000 for insurance when they could simply pay an annual $700 penalty and then buy "insurance" when they get sick?

No one should ever buy insurance under Obamacare, until they're being wheeled into the Emergency room. Every company should drop their plan and pay the fine, except for a few firms that truly compete for elite talent.

I'm pretty sure that's the eventual vision the left has. Single-payer for the vast unwashed, with expensive private plans for the elites and their favored groups (gov't employees, etc.)

I mean, Obamacare gives certain people who are not part of their pet exempted class the "personal choice" to purchase coverage or face a penalty. So there's that.

You mean the Republican-created idea of personal mandate? The one that John McCain and that Tina Fey lookalike that he chose as running mate were floating in the 2008 presidential campaign as the solution to the healthcare crisis? The one that Republicans until 2010 claimed as their own idea? The one Obama settled on because he thought it had a chance of getting through Congress with bipartisan support?

Even if all of this is true, it speaks not one bit to the point, which was that the left wingers refuse to apply personal choice/responsibility to any other area of human existence beyond sex and drugs.

Let's say Republicans dreamed up the individual mandate in the first place. So? The left wingers have signed on. And I never claimed that Republicans or conservatives were all for personal choice and responsibility.

396 — Sorry, but that's a bunch of nonsense. Crosby has explicitly said that it's "shameful" to lock people up. He plainly wants far fewer people locked up, to the point he's against the imprisonment of Bernard Madoff (#349). I don't believe I'm "strawmanning" at all to ask Crosby just whom should be locked up and for how long.

Yeah, Crosby seems to just want to do with non-violent, "non-serial" criminals something along the lines that parents/teachers do when they call "Timeout" for kids: make them go and sit in a corner for a few minutes, then re-release them into the classroom.