[buro9]

From everything I've ever read, there is no concept of rehabilitation in the USA. If you have ever been convicted, or even accused, of a felony or sexual crime in the USA then life as you knew it was over.

The concept of being able to pay a debt to society and for that to settle the books, and to then allow those people to return to society and contribute value again... is alien to America.

The problem starts with the lack of rehabilitation and not with the original incident. If a person is deprived of the hope of ever living a meaningful life again, then what incentive exists against their prior behaviour? There is no disincentive that works when a life has already been destroyed.

Regardless of what it was, drugs, sex, violence, theft, or simply going to a demonstration and being arrested when someone else kicks off and you are convicted by proximity... once you deprive people of a future, of hope, then you really start bringing out the worst in them when you could have brought out the best in them.

[forvelin]

Is this related to fact that there are people who profit over correction services in United States ? After digging around VICE article[0], lack of rehab in US made bit sense at least.

[0] - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/whos-getting-rich-off-the...

[buro9]

It is bigger and deeper than just that.

I've even seen comments on here regarding immigration that simply said if someone has ever been arrested then they shouldn't be allowed into the USA. (No qualifying statements on recency or severity, or even acquittal.)

With regards to crime (including the mere accusation of sexual things) the sentiment of the USA runs counter to the aspiration and promise of social mobility of the USA.

Yes others profit from maintaining the status quo, but worse is that people are judged for life, based on a single incident in their past. And as the article points out, the zero tolerance amplifies the destructive nature of a society that judges.

[mabbo]

I've heard it said that much of it goes back to the Calvinists roots of American culture. The idea that there are good people and bad people, that you are one or the other.

Bad people deserve to go to prison, and therefore people in prison are all bad people. Why should any mercy by shown to bad people? Why should good people have to pay to help bad people? That sounds immoral.

By the same set of rules, good people deserve to be rich, so therefore rich people must be good.

It may not be correct, but it sure does seem to accurately describe how American culture works.

[AnkhMorporkian]

I think that argument can be countered by the prison culture from post WW1 up until the mid 70s. Until the "tough on crime" mantra was paraded around ad nauseum, prisons were largely focused on rehabilitation, not punishment.

Perhaps it was that calvanism somehow seeping back in, but the fact that we got rid of that for at least 40 years means that it's possible we can get back there.

[vijayr]

The ironic, depressing thing is this - strong support for the registry and openly making jokes about prison sexual assaults (in movies, real life etc). How can someone support both at the same time, is beyond my understanding.

[mabbo]

Because the goal is for bad things to happen to 'bad' people. Both of those things are pushing that agenda.

[Pica_soO]

Because we are carnivores, secretly cheering at the misery of others, projecting injustices who happened to us - upon some poor fool who has to suffer for our stomach feelings to be satisfied. That whole - very animal process, is then written down and followed through rigidly- and the redecorated primal lashing out is called justice.

[squozzer]

I'll take your Calvinism and sprinkle on a bit of Social Darwinism, i.e. American society uses crime, among other tools, to destroy internal competition.

Not punish, destroy.

[tehlike]

For immigration, it could make sense, at least in a utilitarian sense. You are trying to eliminate false-negatives, and checking criminal background (in other countries) is one way to do that. Now, many countries (esp. developing ones) people get imprisoned for expressing their thoughts (which is a shame), but whether USA would/should care about this or not is a different question. USA has a quota on how many immigrants it will allow, and it wants the best people. There are many people that can satisfy that requirement.

[buro9]

In the case cited in the article, of a child who as a pre-teenager ended up on a sexual register, does it make sense?

Would it make sense if a homeless child had been caught shoplifting for food in their teenage years and 30 years later had turned their life around and become a professional... does it still make sense?

And of refugees, does it make sense to offer foreign governments a mechanism to prevent emigration simply by arresting those who are likely to leave?

The lack of rehabilitation as a fundamental concept that underpins the treatment of people, is a life sentence to those people.

[tehlike]

I totally agree with you, but my point is, why would US?

[buro9]

To deprive a foreign power of influence in the decision making process.

To enshrine in the process one of the myths of the American Dream in the form of potential for social mobility.

To judge based on the virtues of the individual, rather than to judge based on the legal domain from which the individual originates (you should know that different countries have different standards, is the USA an enforcer of every standard?).

Those are a few that spring to mind.

[Retric]

This assumes the 'best' people are least likely to get arrested. I reject that idea as pushing boundaries is very common among the most intellectually gifted.

[stagbeetle]

In the same vein, you could say that the intellectually gifted wouldn't have gotten arrested in the first place, but pushed the boundaries to just before the tipping point.

It could be a sign of recklessness and an inability to mesh with society.

But, arguing over this is useless. The majority of the people who've been arrested are not the "best" people. They are usually from low socioeconomic backgrounds[0], i.e usually not as educated.

We can also ignore this point entirely. A large part of the American population sees criminals as life-criminals, i.e do it once and you'll do it every chance you get. It doesn't matter what the minority thinks on this issue. As long as the majority believes this is "right" it will prevail. As will the democratic process, for better or worse.

The topic that should be discussed, is how would one go about educating the public on this issue. Is it possible to go the route of the Scandinavian system?

[0]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html

[Retric]

Criminal behavior is very wide spread, arrests are most common at the bottom. EX: How many top bankers have we arrested after the banking crisis?

[tehlike]

Nothing is black and white.

We might be talking about 5 gifted people for every 1000 people with criminal history. But US might be optimizing for 20 gifted people outside of that group, even if it means losing 5.

[Retric]

Except we are looking for the extreme outliers. Bill Gates was arrested, Steve Jobs and Wozniak made blue boxes and they went on to be the 'model' Americans. Feynman is famous for breaking a host of security rules. So, you may be rejecting 50% of the top 1% of 1% of 1% in favor of those less talented.

[Trundle]

Why said anything about intellectually gifted? He said best.

[rayiner]

Probably not. Stuff like getting rid of parole preceded private prisons. Private prisons is a trailing phenomenon that appears to be more about serving the huge demand for prison beds created by retributive policies.

Washington State, for example still has no private prisons. But it enacted one of the country's early "three strikes laws" back in the early 1990s. Private prison companies have been clamoring to get an opportunity to enter the state, but they had nothing to do with the tough laws that caused the existing public prisons to be at 140% capacity.

[ending]

It's also worth considering that private prisons, once established, create perverse incentives to intensify those same retributive policies. A vicious recursion.

[rayiner]

It's a thought but I suspect it's incorrect. The harshness of prison policies peaked in the 1980s to 1990s. Private prisons really started booming in the late 1990s and the 2000s. But the trend since then in policy has been a softening (somewhat) of retributive policies. California's involvement with private prisons for example is largely in this decade, in response to court orders requiring reduction in overcrowding. But it past the country's harshest three strikes laws (where people were getting life sentences for a third non-violent felony) in the 1990s. But it softened that a bit a couple of years ago.

I think the most you can say is that private prisons (and public prison guard unions, which is probably a much bigger force) are slowing the retreat from 1980s/1990s retributive policies.

[paulajohnson]

I think thats got a lot to do with it. Google "prison lobby" for a range of articles on the problem. The same companies also pay for public campaigns that talk up the danger from crime, as that makes people vote for punitive restrictions that keep the money rolling in.

Those politicians who say "If I act on this I'll lose the next election" do so exactly because they know what the private prison industry can do to them.

[cyberferret]

That is the exact feeling I get when I read about any sort of public register. They seem to be predicated on the fact that the people on the register will never, ever change during the course of their lives.

Granted, some won't rehabilitate, and will be habitual reoffenders, but as the article shows, many are once off offenders or just made bad choices as a kid or young adult, and don't really deserve to be marked for life. I just wish there was more evidence of the judicial system at least trying to differentiate the two groups rather than place everyone in the same 'too hard' basket.

[soulnothing]

One anecdotal story I have. I was riding home on the bus in Wilmington. A guy interrupts me asking for some cash. I get to talking asking what it's for and such. Found out he had just gotten out of jail for a possession charge.

The guy was living with his Sister and looking for a job. But due to the charge no one would hire him. I remember him being shook up over being denied a janitor job at Bob Evans. I took him for a drink, and asked him what he was going to do next. He said he had to sell one way or the other. No place would hire him, he was volunteering on the side. He needed money, and selling provided that. Although he didn't want too anymore. His end goal was to get incarcerated again. As he said three square meals and a roof.

I also had a misdemeanor for a DUI. I was turned down from a number of jobs simply due to this. I had done my time, paid everything, and volunteered after wards. Despite this because I had a DUI I was a liable employee.

There seems to be a demonization almost of a lot of things. We're often afraid to give hand outs, or offer a helping hand. Survival of the fittest to an almost extreme. Rehabilitation would be great. But I know many people who don't even believe in giving second chances. One and done sort of thing.

Do we not provide rehabilitation because we don't want to, funds, whatever. Or because we don't think they can be rehabilitated?

[Chris2048]

What is a misdemeanor DUI?

I'll be honest with you, I think some people underestimate how terrible it is; You could have a history of beating up your spouse and be less likely to kill someone..

[soulnothing]

I completely agree, a DUI is serious business. I went dry for 2.5 years after that incident. I was 0.09 just above the legal limit. The accident was caused by me having a seizure behind the wheel (epileptic). So they labeled it as a misdemeanor and put me on the fast track rehab program. Community service, fine, and expungement.

After that I won't let friends drive while intoxicated. I'll grab an uber, or find some other way. Make them stay with me etc.

[parenthephobia]

> The concept of being able to pay a debt to society and for that to settle the books, and to then allow those people to return to society and contribute value again... is alien to America.

Subjectively, thinking about films and TV involving prisoners, all the American ones I can think of (I'm certain there are exceptions, naturally) involve protagonists who are either out-right shown to be innocent or are very heavily implied to be.

OTOH, there are many British ones where the protagonist is definitely guilty, but nonetheless portrayed in a sympathetic or even positive light.

[jgalt212]

fair enough, my anti-American exceptionalism friend. Please point me to an example of a society, of non-trivial size and mixed racial groups, that's doing a good job with rehabilitation and recidivism.

[buro9]

Europe in it's entirety.

Though Scandinavia is an outlier even then: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-...

I guess that in your binary pro/anti view of me this makes me pro-Scandinavian. I can think of worse things to be.

[jgalt212]

Europe is not doing a good job on recidivism. Please provide counter-evidence. And Sweden is rather mono-chromatic.

[ionised]

> Europe is not doing a good job on recidivism.

Where is your counter evidence to what the person you replied to just posted?