[really3452]

Right or wrong, a large function of the prison system is to ruin someone's life in a sufficiently public way for performing actions outside of the given society's norms and values to serve as a deterrent to those who would follow in their footsteps.

[magashna]

Except that has never proven to reduce recidivism, and in the US seems to increase it. The Swedes seem to have much better luck with education, training, and rehabilitative options.

[RealityVoid]

Op mentioned nothing about recidivism or it's usefulness to the prisoner. That's just about irrelevant if the intended desired effect is deterrence.

[_jal]

If you look at legal theory, the actual reasons for punishment are a mixture of deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation and retribution.

It is certainly possible to question how well any of these goals are met, or even the overall framework. But it is useful to start with the reality of how folks talk about punishment in a criminal justice context.

Ref: search "purpose of criminal punishment" and pick one.

[will4274]

Your whole comment comes off as exceedingly arrogant. OP is pretty clearly talking about retribution, so calling this out as one of the "actual" reasons is condescending and a non-sequitur. Moreover, assuming that somebody will agree with you after Googling something implies the only source of the disagreement is another person's lack of knowledge - this is again exceedingly condescending.

[magashna]

Apologies. Punishment is not a deterrent.

[leetcrew]

seriously? you can notice people being deterred by the threat of punishment every day if you pay attention.

just Saturday night I tried to walk outside of a bar holding my drink. the owner asked me not to do it because he might get in trouble.

[magashna]

So if there was no threat of punishment you would become a murderous, thieving, drug user?

[mieseratte]

> So if there was no threat of punishment you would become a murderous, thieving, drug user?

Many years ago I worked in a startup, as it turns out the primary owner of the business is what a typical person would likely consider a con-man. I have a rolodex filled with people who were harmed by this man's lies.

Good luck seeking justice if you don't have a bank-roll to fund a strong lawsuit.

I've long since let it go, but for a solid year or so I was consumed by hatred for this man and very much would've loved to take a tire-iron to this man's knees. Some of the other people hurt are close personal friends, I can say with certainty that I'm not the only one who wanted retribution. These people also have family / relationships, some amount of wealth, opportunity, etc.

As it turns out, the risking non-trivial amounts of time in prison serves a deterrent for certain classes of individual. People with something to lose. That, statistically, it doesn't quite appear to serve the purpose should make you question the circumstances, the incentives at play as relates to the people committing those crimes.

Do be cautions when drawing black-and-white conclusions from statistics.

[chongli]

The GP is talking about a bartender refusing to allow drinks to be taken outside. I think it’s fair to say that if there was no threat of the bartender getting in trouble, the GP could have walked outside with the drink, no problem.

This argument can be extended to cover murder, theft, drug use and any other crimes you might think of by examining people’s value systems. I think we can all agree that murder is against most people’s values but you can’t say it’s universal. Some people are okay with murder in different circumstances but they may not necessarily be psychopaths who crave murder to the detriment of all else. It’s these people that I think may be deterred by the threat of punishment for murder.

Furthermore, to complicate matters a little bit, there is the principle of marginal deterrence. If the punishment for murder is much more severe than for burglary, for example, you can expect a burglar to think twice before deciding to murder the home owner during a break-in. If, on the other hand, you punish stealing with the same severe penalty as murder (say, death penalty for either crime) then you risk incentivizing the burglar to murder anyone who might be a witness to the burglary.

Ultimately, I think the soundness of the principle of punishment as a deterrent derives not from the assumption that everyone has the same values (we don’t) but from the differences in everyone’s values. This helps society produce an outcome that would not otherwise be achievable if we required 100% consensus on every individual value.

[tonyarkles]

No, but I'd happily bring a bottle of beer along with me while I walk the dogs through a park.

I have my personal set of ethics/morals. Murder and theft are not allowed by those. The laws in Canada line up pretty close to these ethics, but not perfectly. The threat of punishment is what stops me from doing stuff in the "does no harm to anyone" category where the laws and my ethics disagree.

[LanceH]

Most people probably wouldn't choose that just because the option would now be available. They might also fear the now legal extra-judicial punishment available to friends/families of victims.

I know a lot more people would park in handicap spaces if the fines were made optional. Speeding is another good example where people literally slow down when they see someone capable of punishing them.

[jl6]

If you need an engineering analogy, think of it as defence in depth. Punishment is part of a package of measures that seek to reduce criminality. Doesn’t stop everybody, and it’s not the only thing that stops anybody.

[goto_self]

The main flaw in your argument is that not all repercussions are legal.

Would I try heroin if there were no negative consequences? I'd certainly be less averse.

[leetcrew]

black and white is not usually an effective model for the world. I don't think I would become a "murderous, thieving, drug user", but I would probably take parking rules a lot less seriously. I might fly my drone places where it's not allowed. I'd probably get a really loud exhaust for my car too.

[rbut]

And you are wiser than anyone in authority that has walked before you? (eg. parents, law makers, authorities, teachers, etc).

Punishment is a deterrent and has been proven so for millennia.

[maxheadroom]

>Punishment is a deterrent and has been proven so for millennia.

A proven deterrent? Do you have any facts to back-up your posit? The crime and recidivism rates would seem to indicate the contrary; especially, in the states.

Essentially, we should - in theory - have no crime by now (given it's been over a millennium) as all rates should've diminished to zero, yeah?

At best, punishment as a deterrent is keeping the for-profit prison-industrial complex in business and that's about the extent of any benefit[s] (if it can even be called that) it might be providing to society.

[goto_self]

This is absurd. Something can work in some cases for some people and yet not in all cases. It's not a matter of always working or never working.

There's a line of thought I keep seeing in this thread: a purpose of imprisonment is deterrence by punishment. people still commit crimes. therefore deterrence by punishment doesn't work. therefore prisons should be replaced with free-range daycare for adults.

You don't have to like the idea of restricting someone's freedom. But would you rather that a violent offender be in prison and unable to cause further harm? I would.

[swebs]

And by your ridiculous standards, crime in Sweden should be going down, yet it is booming. The rate of sex crimes alone has tripled since 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden

[pandaman]

The reason we use "deterrent" instead of "prevention" is that we understand that punishment cannot prevent all the crime. Some people will not be deterred by a threat of punishment.

If you entertain such a possibility then it is easy to see that the system with ideal deterrence (i.e. it detters everyone who could possibly be deterred) will also have 100% recidivism as the only people who get punished are the ones who cannot be deterred and will keep committing crimes no matter what.

[really3452]

"Deterrence in relation to criminal offending is the idea or theory that the threat of punishment will deter people from committing crime and reduce the probability and/or level of offending in society." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)

So, punishment as a deterrent is currently a theory.

[magashna]

I never claimed to be wiser, though there is evidence that agrees.

At least in the US, murder rates are consistently higher in states with the death penalty.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140330143555/http://www.amnest...

[joshuamorton]

While I generally agree with your broader point, I doubt this relationship is causal.

[abakker]

A confounding factor in this statistic is that even if you were a rational actor, weighing the deterrence value of the death penalty, the actual application of the death penalty is far from certain, so you'd appropriately assign it low probability. The distance from the present in time, and absolute probability are likely key contributors to this not being a good stat. A good look at deterrence would be Singapore, where probability of swift punishment seems to materially reduce crime.

[vernie]

Thanks dad.

[DoreenMichele]

I don't know what the aggregate statistics are, so I don't know the data says about this at the societal level. But at the individual level, I think it is more accurate to say this varies and it may work with some people but not others.

There is a thing that officially gets called Oppositional Defiant Disorder where you have a kid whose wiring boils down to You can't make me! Neither of my sons has been given such a diagnosis, but that's perhaps in part because I recognized that trying to force issues as a routine thing or be dictatorial with them would be counterproductive.

As a parent, I didn't use a punishment model because I believed that would backfire with my kids. Maybe it kind of works with some kids, but I was sure that would be a case of "There will be hell to pay" in my home.

Studies typically show that every dollar invested in the health, welfare and education of preschoolers saves multiple dollars down the line on things like prison. Of course, we still need some means to address the issue when things go sideways, but it's problematic to focus overly much on addressing problems at that late stage.

We have jokes about "the third world country of America" because America does a relatively poor job of designing a society that generally works for most people and prevents issues as much as possible. Instead, we deal with problems after they develop at a point when they are much harder to address and when any optimal outcomes are no longer possible.

[harimau777]

Even if it's not as effective as other alternatives, I think it is most likely at least something of a deterrent. For example, I hear of criminals purposely avoiding crimes with more serious punishments (e.g. mugging someone but avoiding hurting or killing them).

In addition, there's a saying that "locks don't keep criminals out, they just keep honest people honest". I think it's likely that punishment at least serves a similar role.

Granted, I think we would probably both agree that the US justice system (for example) is too focused on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation.

[umvi]

So what is an effective deterrent if not punishment?

[magashna]

Better education and healthcare I'd assume.

[jcutrell]

Deterrent is, I think traditionally at least, considered “negative reinforcement.” So, “I don’t want to end up like that person, so I won’t do what they did to end up in their situation.”

[metalliqaz]

... said the guy who obviously doesn't have kids.

[magashna]

But I have parents. Do you think I was raised in a vacuum?

[lazide]

There is a huge difference between having something applied to you, and having to determine the correct course of action (independently) to apply with someone else and then deal with the consequences/fallout.

In my experience, you have to pick something - and nothing is perfect or works all the time. It is usually worse not picking something (inaction) or being inconsistent in what you pick (wildly varying expectations/results).

How this applies to the current thread is up to the reader.

[LaGrange]

It doesn't work for deterrence either, but it's pretty clear by now that the function of most penal systems is vengeance.

[zamalek]

You are arguing reformation vs. restitution. Most countries (and their electorate) would rather have restitution, not because restitution is a better solution, but because vengeance has been the gold standard of justice for millennia. It's a self-perpetuating zeitgeist.

The irony is that these systems do not achieve restitution. The victims may experience righteous indignation, but that will soon fade away. Meanwhile the perpetrators gets to spend a few years among their peers in crime university.

> The Swedes

That is a reformative incarceration system.

[leetcrew]

recidivism and deterrence in general are not the same thing. high recidivism does not mean that people who haven't been imprisoned yet aren't deterred from committing crimes.

[DataWorker]

What about an ever increasing rate of criminality? If more and more people are competing crimes then doesn’t that suggest the deterrent effect is minimal, more importantly insufficient. And if the deterrent effect is insufficient then shouldn’t we try to find a better way by making use of modern science and data driven decision making?

[mieseratte]

> If more and more people are competing crimes then doesn’t that suggest the deterrent effect is minimal

It's a multi-variable system. It could be that other conditions and effects override what is, in other circumstances, a solid deterrent.

Threat of long imprisonment works great on the guy who doesn't want to lose his cushy job and easy life. It doesn't work as well on someone with nothing and no hope of gaining anything.

Saying it doesn't serve as a deterrent for a certain class of individual is a fair statement, saying it doesn't work, full-stop is most certainly wrong.

[DataWorker]

My statement was that it is insufficient. It serves as a deterrent to some extent. But it’s not meaningful with respect to the ultimate goal. Have you ever decided not to do something because you could be imprisoned? There are psychopaths but I think they are in the minority, even here.

[leetcrew]

> If more and more people are competing crimes then doesn’t that suggest the deterrent effect is minimal, more importantly insufficient.

is this actually true? as I understand it, we are well past the peak of criminal activity ( at least in the US).

[DataWorker]

The incarceration rate has declined in the past decade but I would guess that’s due to already having locked up a large proportion of the population as well as changes enforcement and prosecution. Weed is legal now, to take an obvious example of prosecutorial waste that’s been ameliorated.

[austincheney]

In the US there should be separate prisons for first-time offenders versus offenders who have previous convictions.

[siruncledrew]

This is in China, not the US. Different system.

[viklove]

This article is about China...

[WhompingWindows]

It's intended* function is to act as a deterrent. The jury is still out on whether it actually functions effectively as a deterrent. For instance, do active criminals know the potential punishments for their transgressions? Do they know what life is like for current or former prisoners? If yes to either, does it actually deter active criminals or do they just consider it a risk, a cost of doing their "business?

Deterrence is a nice in theory, but it depends on awareness among the general populace, and depending on people being aware is not a good start to any policy.

[everlastingfan]

If exile was seen as ruinous enough in the public eye, that could provide a humane alternative to imprisonment.

Racist sentimemts could be exploited for this in a very humorous way. Imagine hackers being exiled to Mexico, and being let in on the precondition that they spend the first X years working on improving Mexico's public infrastructure.

[cameronbrown]

> Imagine hackers being exiled to Mexico, and being let in on the precondition that they spend the first X years working on improving Mexico's public infrastructure.

I think people would even volunteer to do that for free if the willingness was there, but it isn't really.

[really3452]

Yes, traditionally official exile to another continent was considered sufficient. However, eventually the United States, and later Australia, started refusing exile shipments. I suspect that Mexico would refuse exile shipments.

[everlastingfan]

Prisons are pretty expensive, couldn't Mexico be paid to house exiles? I doubt they couldn't handle a few people with violent tendencies if paid the right price.