Should people still be regarded as criminals under these circumstances?

[A_Seagull]

The notion of deterrence is an absurdity in a country which privatises its criminal justice system. Once prisons become enmeshed within the overarching network of business and commerce then the incentive of such corporate entities is to get MORE people into them, not LESS. Crime and punishment then becomes a business like any other and it will be encouraged to prosper..

It need not be this way. The privatisation could be set up so that the employer ( ie the community) pays on performance, which primarily ( but not exclusively) would be based on a minimisation or reduction in crime.

[Obvious Leo]

The notion of deterrence is an absurdity in a country which privatises its criminal justice system. Once prisons become enmeshed within the overarching network of business and commerce then the incentive of such corporate entities is to get MORE people into them, not LESS. Crime and punishment then becomes a business like any other and it will be encouraged to prosper..

It need not be this way. The privatisation could be set up so that the employer ( ie the community) pays on performance, which primarily ( but not exclusively) would be based on a minimisation or reduction in crime.

In principle what you say is quite true. If the owners of prisons were remunerated at a rate inversely proportional to the rate of recidivism then the free market principles would serve to operate in a more socially beneficial direction. I think we can expect to see such a change in direction on the same day that we see a squadron of pigs flying overhead, but I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Scott Mayers]

You know how technology keeps progressing so let's say we have this scenario.

We have a serial murderer who normally would be executed or punished for his crimes. Let's say that the people he killed can be restored back to life and that the restored people suffer no lingering effects from the murders. Let's further say that through an operation, the murderer can be changed so that he doesn't go around hurting or killing people anymore, in effect just as if the murders never happened.

Now it's true that the murders did occur. Yet they can be erased from the record books based on what I just said. Should the guilty be punished? What do you think?

PhilX

"Murder" would no longer exist as meaning, "to permanently end one's life". AND if no one suffered anymore either, what would be the need for a penalty?

Playing a video game, you can die and be resurrected many times. This fits your scenario. ??

[Philosophy Explorer]

You know how technology keeps progressing so let's say we have this scenario.

We have a serial murderer who normally would be executed or punished for his crimes. Let's say that the people he killed can be restored back to life and that the restored people suffer no lingering effects from the murders. Let's further say that through an operation, the murderer can be changed so that he doesn't go around hurting or killing people anymore, in effect just as if the murders never happened.

Now it's true that the murders did occur. Yet they can be erased from the record books based on what I just said. Should the guilty be punished? What do you think?

PhilX

"Murder" would no longer exist as meaning, "to permanently end one's life". AND if no one suffered anymore either, what would be the need for a penalty?

Playing a video game, you can die and be resurrected many times. This fits your scenario. ??

No because it's not real. I wonder how AI would react to my scenario?

PhilX

[Lawrence Crocker]

The notion of deterrence is an absurdity in a country which privatises its criminal justice system.

One may believe that private prisons, and their lobbyists, are an abomination, and believe that prison terms in the US are generally excessive, and still believe that there is such a thing as deterrence -- even in the US.

It is philosophically important to distinguish between marginal deterrence and background deterrence. Marginal deterrence is the extra deterrence that we get from raising the sentence for purse snatching from two years to three years. The studies suggest that marginal deterrence diminishes very quickly with increasingly harsh sentences. We get less deterrent bang for our buck for each additional year of sentencing. Given current US sentencing levels we get, as a practical matter, no additional deterrence by a sentence increase, and we would get almost no loss of deterrence by significantly decreasing sentencing severity.

Background deterrence is a different matter. It is much harder to measure. How many more assaults, rapes, adulterated foods, and income tax cheating would there be if there were no laws or no enforcement? We can draw some cautious inferences from the Montreal police strike of 1969, when the number of robberies and burglaries skyrocketed.

[Obvious Leo]

People don't go to prison to learn how to be better citizens. They go to prison to make useful contacts so they can learn how to be better criminals. It's a vicious circle because a prison environment is probably the worst imaginable environment in which a person would be likely to rehabilitate himself. This is not rocket science but simple common sense and countries which adopt policies which acknowledge this blindly obvious fact have lower crime rates and thus lower incarceration rates.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The notion of deterrence is an absurdity in a country which privatises its criminal justice system.

One may believe that private prisons, and their lobbyists, are an abomination, and believe that prison terms in the US are generally excessive, and still believe that there is such a thing as deterrence -- even in the US.

It is philosophically important to distinguish between marginal deterrence and background deterrence. Marginal deterrence is the extra deterrence that we get from raising the sentence for purse snatching from two years to three years. The studies suggest that marginal deterrence diminishes very quickly with increasingly harsh sentences. We get less deterrent bang for our buck for each additional year of sentencing. Given current US sentencing levels we get, as a practical matter, no additional deterrence by a sentence increase, and we would get almost no loss of deterrence by significantly decreasing sentencing severity.

Background deterrence is a different matter. It is much harder to measure. How many more assaults, rapes, adulterated foods, and income tax cheating would there be if there were no laws or no enforcement? We can draw some cautious inferences from the Montreal police strike of 1969, when the number of robberies and burglaries skyrocketed.

The greatest deterrence against crime is a good public health, welfare and education system. Additionally, building a society in which all feel valued and have access to opportunities that give their lives meaning; a society where there is low inequality helps too.

[Obvious Leo]

a society where their is low inequality helps too.

This has been statistically demonstrated time and time again. Countries which strive to provide equality of opportunity for all of its citizens have lower rates of crime. Deliberately creating an underclass of the disadvantaged is hardly likely to encourage such an underclass to respect the values of the society which made them such. It astonishes me that policy-makers could be blind to such an obvious truth of human nature. If you treat people like shit they'll be watching out for a chance to get one back at you.

[Philosophy Explorer]

People don't go to prison to learn how to be better citizens. They go to prison to make useful contacts so they can learn how to be better criminals. It's a vicious circle because a prison environment is probably the worst imaginable environment in which a person would be likely to rehabilitate himself. This is not rocket science but simple common sense and countries which adopt policies which acknowledge this blindly obvious fact have lower crime rates and thus lower incarceration rates.

"People don't go to prison to learn how to be better citizens. They go to prison to make useful contacts so they can learn how to be better criminals."

The number one reason why people go to prison - it's because the courts have sent them there. You forgot to mention that having a record that's not sealed makes it much harder to get reestablished in the outside world. Also looking at external factors isn't the whole picture - no one put weapons into the hands of the criminals, they did that themselves so looking to external factors doesn't relieve them of responsibility because I can find 100 people who wouldn't do the crime these criminals did. And it wouldn't bother me that these violent criminals were executed just as we would chuck a bad machine part which would improve the function of the machine.

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

a society where their is low inequality helps too.

This has been statistically demonstrated time and time again. Countries which strive to provide equality of opportunity for all of its citizens have lower rates of crime. Deliberately creating an underclass of the disadvantaged is hardly likely to encourage such an underclass to respect the values of the society which made them such. It astonishes me that policy-makers could be blind to such an obvious truth of human nature. If you treat people like shit they'll be watching out for a chance to get one back at you.

One gets the feeling that there are powerful forces in the USA to do just that and to make hard cash in the process.

[Hobbes' Choice]

People don't go to prison to learn how to be better citizens. They go to prison to make useful contacts so they can learn how to be better criminals. It's a vicious circle because a prison environment is probably the worst imaginable environment in which a person would be likely to rehabilitate himself. This is not rocket science but simple common sense and countries which adopt policies which acknowledge this blindly obvious fact have lower crime rates and thus lower incarceration rates.

"People don't go to prison to learn how to be better citizens. They go to prison to make useful contacts so they can learn how to be better criminals."

The number one reason why people go to prison - it's because the courts have sent them there. You forgot to mention that having a record that's not sealed makes it much harder to get reestablished in the outside world. Also looking at external factors isn't the whole picture - no one put weapons into the hands of the criminals, they did that themselves so looking to external factors doesn't relieve them of responsibility because I can find 100 people who wouldn't do the crime these criminals did. And it wouldn't bother me that these violent criminals were executed just as we would chuck a bad machine part which would improve the function of the machine.

PhilX

You have a repeated tendency to demonstrate a very dim and unsubtle understanding of the social world.

Have you ever wondered why prison populations differ so much in different countries? Have you also wondered why sentencing policy is so varied, and why some things are regarded crimes, whilst others are not?
Who makes a person a criminal?
If you really think that the "primary reason" people are in prison is because the courts send them there- that means the primary cause of criminality is the courts. Why not start your thinking there?

Laws and courts make criminals. So much is obvious.

[Philosophy Explorer]

People don't go to prison to learn how to be better citizens. They go to prison to make useful contacts so they can learn how to be better criminals. It's a vicious circle because a prison environment is probably the worst imaginable environment in which a person would be likely to rehabilitate himself. This is not rocket science but simple common sense and countries which adopt policies which acknowledge this blindly obvious fact have lower crime rates and thus lower incarceration rates.

"People don't go to prison to learn how to be better citizens. They go to prison to make useful contacts so they can learn how to be better criminals."

The number one reason why people go to prison - it's because the courts have sent them there. You forgot to mention that having a record that's not sealed makes it much harder to get reestablished in the outside world. Also looking at external factors isn't the whole picture - no one put weapons into the hands of the criminals, they did that themselves so looking to external factors doesn't relieve them of responsibility because I can find 100 people who wouldn't do the crime these criminals did. And it wouldn't bother me that these violent criminals were executed just as we would chuck a bad machine part which would improve the function of the machine.

PhilX

You have a repeated tendency to demonstrate a very dim and unsubtle understanding of the social world.

Have you ever wondered why prison populations differ so much in different countries? Have you also wondered why sentencing policy is so varied, and why some things are regarded crimes, whilst others are not?
Who makes a person a criminal?
If you really think that the "primary reason" people are in prison is because the courts send them there- that means the primary cause of criminality is the courts. Why not start your thinking there?

Laws and courts make criminals. So much is obvious.

It doesn't mean the cause of criminality are the courts. The prisoners had freedom of choice before doing the crime in the US overall.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Phil. I was responding to the point about deterrence and recidivism but I wasn't suggesting that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I was simply pointing out that tackling the causes of crime was greatly more effective than tackling the effects of it if deterrence was indeed the purpose of the criminal justice system, a claim which I refute. There is always a case for incarceration on the grounds of public safety but in the absence of such grounds the only other reason for doing it is vengeance.

I presume you're aware of the fact that about 80% of people in jail are suffering from one or other form of mental illness and an even greater percentage have also been the victims of appalling crimes themselves. Nobody is suggesting that this absolves them from their culpability for their actions but surely you'll concede that such facts are hardly conducive to them making the sorts of behavioural choices which might best benefit the society they live in. Are you suggesting that chucking them in jail and treating them like animals will help them to make smarter choices in the future?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Leo said:

"I presume you're aware of the fact that about 80% of people in jail are suffering from one or other form of mental illness and an even greater percentage have also been the victims of appalling crimes themselves."

I don't regard psychology as a science. While some may be shocked to hear this, I still regard those with mental illness as criminals as I think it's used as a convenient excuse to commit crimes. What I do know from first-hand experience is that drugs/drinking is a root cause of crime and it wouldn't bother me that for those who commit violent crimes get executed as it would save the state some money housing violent prisoners and providing them with luxuries (gyms and big-screen TVs e.g.) and healthcare and other services.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

I don't regard psychology as a science.

Mental illness has nothing to do with psychology. Human psychology concerns itself with the study of human behaviour but mental illness relates directly to psychopathology, which is a specialised area of medicine generally known as psychiatry.

While some may be shocked to hear this, I still regard those with mental illness as criminals

I doubt that anybody will be in the least bit surprised to hear you say this. Thus far you have never shown any reluctance to openly demonstrate your monumental ignorance.