The Purpose of Incarceration

Post Reply New Topic

Ok so what is the point of prison. I have a very definite belief that incarceration should only be reserved for those that cannot live safely in free society. I also believe that as genetics, acquired injury, brain malfunctions etc play such an unavoidable role in our behaviour people who cannot live in society should be treated in prison with a good level of decency no matter what their 'crime' is.

Those that can do not fit into the category of 'cannot live safely in free society' should be punished/rehabilitated in the community.


What is your opinion ?

They're basically pointless. I think the intent is some form of retributive justice, sort of like extended time-out for adults. The reality is that it's not at all effective at reintegrating criminals and making them productive members of society.

Since most people incarcerated are for "victimless" crimes, I've long believed that they are an instrument to pool cheap labor (prison industry is a booming sector in America...putting many outside workers out of work because they can't work for "prison wages").

I'd agree with what you say, at least in general, Dent. Incarceration (permanent) definitely for rape, murder and embezzlement of public funds (sorry, just grinding my MP expenses axe there).

*prepares to duck and run* I also think there's an argument to be made in favour of reintroducing capital punishment for a very small number of the worst crimes. I put the argument myself that socio-economic circumstances drive some to burglary etc but there are instances wherein the death sentence is required e.g. how many would be willing to hand down an execution order on the former slave owners at the end of the US Civil War? Or for Henry Kissinger? Josef Stalin? What about Josef Fritzl in Austria? The evidence is absolutely irrefutable so far as I can see - my argument would have been to put one in his head then bury in an unmarked grave.

In the USA at least, there is a whole industry of prisons and guards, etc. If you stop punishing lots of people for minor crimes all these people will be put out of work and the economy will suffer. So the best way to give a boost to the economy is to encourage crime so that more and more people can be employed as guards.

I read an article not so long ago that in a US state where some of the jails were privately run, the company running the show bribed a judge into handing down harsh sentences so they would get more people, which gave them more money to bribe with and so on. Can't find it now but I remeber the article talking about a girl who stole a candy bar or something ridculous and got six months - or somesuch thing

See http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/02/ju ... or-ta.html

The purpose of incarceration in the United States was supposed to incarcerate convicts as punishment, and their main purpose is to rehabilitate the convicts so they can re-enter society as normal persons. But in reality, the United States is merely warehousing people, even those convicted of minor property crimes. In most cases, they come out as more prepared criminals other than rehabilitated persons.

You can thank Ronald Regan for that.

Rehabilitation was a mistaken doctrine pushed by the Quakers in the 19th century. That is why our Big Prisons are called Penitentiaries. They were, under Quaker Doctrine, a place where the wrong-doer could rethink his actions and his values and hopefully come out a better person. We know empirically, this is nonsense. Most of the people in our prisons either should not be there (i.e. they have committed "victimless" crimes) or they are the dregs and garbage of our species and there is nothing we can do for them.

The first step is to stop jailing people for minor drug offenses and prostitution. The will diminish the population of our prisons by about fifty percent. Then we should reconsider the death penalty and apply it more vigorously. We should also consider penal colonies located outside of U.S. territory. Perhaps we could buy Tierra del Fuego from the Hottntots and set up a penal colony there. Ship 'em out, give them a shovel and a bag of seeds and forget about them, whether they live or die.

ruveyn

I agree that incarceration for non-violent or sexual crimes(maybe victimless crimes is a better term) is pretty pointless. Prison probably adds more too criminality than it deters or rehabilitates. However, and this is probably where I differ with all you, I believe most murderers, rapists, child molesters, as well as other of the most heinous criminals should be executed. I just don't see how it's any more humane to keep somebody locked up in a cage for the rest of their life. I don't believe these criminals can ever be rehabilitated or redeem themselves to society so what's the point? Death is gruesome whether it's strapped to a chair or of cancer in your prison bed 60 years later. Either way it's a death sentence.

The obvious stupid brutality of the comments by ruveyn and Jacoby indicates they have no understanding of criminals specifically or humanity in general or the nature of crime.

Expand more on that please. I understand there is extenuating circumstances but I don't believe that excuses anything.

Maybe you would feel differently if you lived in an area where this stuff happens every day or had it effect a friend or family member.

tierra del fuego is populated. not sure the locals would take to kindly to the US dropping the scum they neitehr want nor can handle on their doorstep.

Personally, I feel that prison is best used to give those with the potential to be rehabilitated a chance to learn from their mistakes (giving the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, as jail is a correctable error, whereas death is not).

However, for those who cannot safely reenter society, it may be necessary, for the safety of us all, to kill them. Doing so as "punishment" is wrong - it lowers us all to their level; however, when one shoots a rabid dog, one does so as a safety measure for everyone else, not in order to punish the dog for being rabid. Criminals should only be executed when there is no viable alternative, and such execution should be carried out with no more vengefulness than one would associate with killing a dangerous animal. (I also believe that incarcerating someone for the rest of their natural life is far more cruel than almost any method of execution one cares to imagine, because even the worst method of killing someone still winds up with them being dead, not stuck in a 10'x10' room for sixty or seventy years.)

You may notice that I refuse to cushion the situation in nice words there; we don't "put them down" for our safety, we kill them. We must be willing to face our actions, not hide from them. If you can't stomach the idea of killing someone, then for the love of sanity, don't fracking do it!! Just be aware of the possible consequences, should the next Jack the Ripper either escape or win parole by pretending to be rehabilitated. Either way, be willing to face it with your eyes open.

If you think we have a 'prison industry', there's a lot we can learn from China. They wrote the book on it.

I've been in a prison (fixing a computer... that made uniforms for the military. It didn't look so bad; they were learning a skill, and seemed to be fairly friendly. Better than letting them just brood...

I think it is detrimental to incarcerate people who have commited small/victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc) along with murderers, rapists, child molestors, et al. The former group include people who would not choose to become violent criminals, but are forced to act that way to survive in a hostile environment filled with people from the latter group. That is not "rehabilitation".

As a general rule, I am against the death penalty; however, in extreme cases (eg. brutal murder or rape combined with lack of remorse and/or high possibility of reoffending), I believe it is justified.