[slibhb]

> At some point we need to think pragmatically about what kind of society we want to create, rather than spending all of our time worrying about whether or not people are getting what they deserve.

To me, these two things are the same.

I want to live in a society where people are held responsible for their actions. If they commit a crime, they should be punished in proportion to their crime. This is a kind of humanism because it respects individuals' freedom of choice (i.e. you choose to commit a crime...or not).

To be concerned "whether or not people are getting what they deserve" is the definition of justice. And it goes both ways: if the punishment is too severe, too random, or inflicted on the innocent, that is also a problem.

[danShumway]

Justice can't be separated from rehabilitation. If your punishment system predictably increases recidivism rates for crimes that have real-world consequences, then you basically are punishing innocent people for other people's actions.

Unless you plan to keep every prisoner in prison indefinitely, then the state that they are in when they leave prison matters. It doesn't just matter for them, it also matters for everybody else who lives alongside them in the future -- people who don't deserve to live in a worse, more dangerous society just because we determined that somebody else completely unrelated to them didn't suffer enough yet.

Prisoners who leave prison without being properly rehabilitated are a liability and a risk for everyone else outside of prison -- and even if you don't care about the prisoners, you should at least care about the other citizens who live around them.

[slibhb]

> Justice can't be separated from rehabilitation. If your punishment system predictably increases recidivism rates for crimes that have real-world consequences, then you basically are punishing innocent people for other people's actions.

If we grant humans responsibility then this is not true. If we jail someone for knocking over a liquor store and then he gets out 5 years later and kills an old lady, the responsibility for those crimes is his. Not "society's," not "the criminal justice system's," only his.

My argument is that humans can make choices and therefore we are responsible for our actions. You argument is that humans cannot make choices, we are rag dolls tossed around by fate (or whichever system you feel like attacking).

> Unless you plan to keep every prisoner in prison indefinitely, then the state that they are when they leave prison matters. It doesn't just matter for them, it also matters for everybody else who lives alongside them in the future -- people who don't deserve to live in a worse, more dangerous society just because we determined that somebody else completely unrelated to them didn't suffer enough yet.

> Prisoners who leave prison without being properly rehabilitated are a liability and a risk for everyone else outside of prison -- and even if you don't care about the prisoners, you should at least care about the other citizens who live around them.

Talking about "prisoners who haven't been properly rehabilitated" makes my skin crawl. Criminals are human beings and you don't have a right to mold them according to your whims just because they broke the law. You only have a right to punish them in proportion to their crime, nothing more or less.

You believe that through empirical and rational reasoning you can "rehabilitate" criminals in order to reduce crime. I don't think this is true. I think your perspective is driven by emotion, a distaste for punishment, and a sense that the downtrodden are always right. But even if it is true, I'm against it on humanistic grounds.

A society where criminals are punished proportionally to their crimes is an end in itself.

[danShumway]

> You argument is that humans cannot make choices, we are rag dolls tossed around by fate (or whichever system you feel like attacking).

We can with a high degree of confidence say that a focus on rehabilitation, training, and safer prison environments reduces future crime rates, the same way that we can say that putting air bags in cars reduces automobile deaths. You can take from that what you will about free will, but there just is an obvious relationship here, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

I don't think I'm attacking the concept of free will if I say that adding guard rails on a twisty road will reduce automobile deaths. I don't think I'm attacking the concept of free will if I say that areas with high job opportunities and housing rates tend to have less crime, and that investing in public infrastructure can lower crime rates. Similarly, I don't think I'm attacking the concept of free will if I say that prisoners being able to get a job after they leave prison is heavily correlated with recidivism rates.

> Criminals are human beings and you don't have a right to mold them according to your whims

Okay sure, but giving prisoners access to educational and recreational materials and programs isn't "molding them" against their will. They want this stuff too.

It's not for a prisoner's benefit that jails are charging money to make phone calls to their family -- that's not a policy that's born out of our commitment to avoid changing their minds against their will. We're not talking about "reeducating" people, we're looking at very obvious statistical data that says people who don't spend their entire prison sentence wasting their minds, who have training to get a job after they leave prison, who aren't regularly placed into dangerous situations that reinforce fight/flight responses while they're in prison, are less likely to hurt other people.

And you can look at that and say that it's distasteful, or that they don't deserve a job, or that you don't like the idea that environment and resources have an obvious statistical effect on crime rates; but if you do, then I think that you should also have to grapple with telling ordinary people who have committed no crimes that you're deliberately putting prisoners into situations where the math says that those prisoners are more likely to commit future crimes.

----

To add onto this, we already do have policies in prisons that are designed to mold prisoner minds, many of them really problematic -- we knock off jail time for prisoners that take on dangerous jobs (often for little to no pay), and the excuse we use is that it's good for them. We've put prisoners into extremely dangerous situations fighting wildfires in California even though many of those prisoners on release are not eligible to be firefighters because of their felony records. Less on the problematic side, we also regularly commute drug sentences if prisoners will enter rehab programs and do community service, a judicial policy that pretty much everyone thinks is a good idea.

So it's not like I'm proposing some kind of dangerous unprecedented idea here, we are already more than happy to talk about rehabilitation as an excuse for policy when it suits us. I'm not proposing a brand new unheard-of idea, I'm just arguing that giving access to books, educational materials, and entertainment will also very clearly make society safer -- and that whether or not you think it's anyone's responsibility to keep prisoners from re-offending, it is still kind of messed up to tell ordinary citizens, "we're going to have policies that make you less safe because we're worried somebody somewhere isn't suffering enough." As a citizen, even isolated from my beliefs about how justice actually works and how it's different from punishment, I still think it's pretty understandable and pretty logical to be upset about that.

[slibhb]

> We can with a high degree of confidence say that a focus on rehabilitation, training, and prison environment reduces future crime rates, the same way that we can say that putting air bags in cars reduces automobile deaths. You can take from that what you will about free will, but there just is an obvious relationship here, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

Comparing social engineering to an air bag is silly. We can ram cars into walls in labs over and over. We can't fit society in a lab and so we can't model it very well. But even if we could reduce crime using these strategies, the strategies themselves fit my definition of a crime because they violate my definition of justice.

> I don't think I'm attacking the concept of free will if I say that adding guard rails on a twisty road will reduce deaths. I don't think I'm attacking the concept of free will if I say that areas with high job opportunities and housing rates tend to have less crime, and that investing in public infrastructure can lower crime rates. Similarly, I don't think I'm attacking the concept of free will if I say that prisoners being able to get a job after they leave prison is heavily correlated with recidivism rates.

You previously blamed the justice system for recidivism instead of the criminal (because it should have reformed him). That's quite different than "guard rails". What did I say that made you think I'm against "investing in public infrastructure" or "allowing ex-cons to get jobs"?

> Okay sure, but giving prisoners access to educational and recreational materials and programs isn't "molding them" against their will. They want this stuff too.

> It's not for a prisoner's benefit that jails are charging money to make phone calls to their family -- that's not a policy that's born out of our commitment not to accidentally mess with their minds against their will. We're not talking about "reeducating" people, we're looking at very obvious statistical data that says people who don't spend their entire prison sentence wasting their minds, who have training to get a job after they leave prison, who aren't regularly placed into dangerous situations that reinforce fight/flight responses while they're in prison, are less likely to hurt other people.

I said that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. I didn't say that prisoners should sit in their cells going insane. I didn't say the author here should not be able to have a chess board. It's reasonable to question whether a punishment is proportional to the crime, whether it is cruel and unusual, etc.

Overly cruel punishments (China executing drug users for example) are exactly as wrong as punishing criminals "for their own good". If you could prevent all theft by, say, cutting off the hands of thieves, would you be okay with that? (I wouldn't, because the punishment does not fit the crime).

> And you can look at that and say that it's distasteful, or that they don't deserve a job, or that you don't like the idea that environment and resources have an obvious statistical effect on crime rates; but if you do, then I think that you should also have to grapple with telling ordinary people who have committed no crimes that you're deliberately putting prisoners into situations where they're more likely to hurt them.

I never said ex-cons don't deserve a job. I don't think that ex-cons should have to announce themselves in job applications. That is exactly the kind of dehumanizing strategy that I'm arguing against. When you've done your time, you've paid your dues, the world is set right, and you should be able to go on your way.

Believe me, I know what you're proposing is not "brand new". It's very old. And you're correct to say that it already exerts a lot of influence.

My argument is that, as it gains more and more influence, the value of human beings will gradually be lost, because we will be treating people as means to some end (a better society, a safer society), rather than ends in themselves. Humans will be viewed as "products of their environment" rather that free-willing, free-acting agents. Anyway, this drama is not new, it's as old as time and I'm sure it will keep playing out for as long as there are people.

[danShumway]

> I don't know, ask his victim

I understand you didn't write this, but this is the context my original comment was made in -- the context of a series of posters who were very explicitly denying the humanity and agency of the prisoners in question. Again, they weren't you, but still, understand that the context I'm talking about and the entry point I had into the discussion was people arguing that denying prisoners mental stimulation and leaving their brains to rot was a fair and just punishment.

My argument was that even if you didn't care about the inherent humanity of a prisoner, you should at least care about reducing recidivism rates, which mental stimulation and job training absolutely does.

And I understand now that you aren't arguing against that. You came into this conversation with a different perspective and you're annoyed that I'm treating it like the same perspective. I apologize for that. It's hard for me to context switch so quickly, but I should have made more of an effort.

But similarly, the perspective I have is not at all that we should treat human beings purely as a means to an end, and I don't think I said anything to that effect; my argument has consistently been that even if someone doesn't care about human beings as an end to themselves or as beings with basic human rights, at least they can care about the society surrounding them. Because that's the context that this thread started in: people literally arguing that making sure a victim was satisfied was the only goal that mattered.

I haven't advocated for any of the extreme positions you're talking about: I'm not saying that people don't have responsibility for their actions, I'm saying that in responding to those actions we as a society are capable of hurting more people than just the guilty, and we have some degree of moral duty to prevent innocent people from being unnecessarily hurt when it's possible and prudent to do so. In other words, if I know someone innocent is going to be hurt, and I can prevent it without taking away the rights or dehumanizing another person, and I refuse to do so, that isn't justice.

So for example, if a person drives drunk and crashes, I'm not saying that person isn't to blame or that they shouldn't be punished. But I do still want to put up some guard rails and possibly save their life and maybe even a few other drivers as well. If they hit into another driver or pedestrian while drunk and kill them -- that is itself an unjust outcome.

So if someone came to me and said, "why are you paying for taxis for drunk drivers, why are you putting up guard rails, why can't they accept responsibility", I wouldn't argue that drunk drivers aren't responsible for their actions. But I would argue that as a society we also have a responsibility to protect innocent people on the roads who didn't choose to drive drunk (again, to the extent that we can do so without unfairly targeting or taking away someone's rights). I'm not arguing the extreme, I'm not arguing that if someone gets pulled over driving drunk that they shouldn't be charged. I'm not arguing that we should just let everybody out of jail, or cut off their hands if they steal, or bribe criminals to stop committing crimes. I'm arguing what I think is a fairly standard, uncontroversial opinion in the context of a thread that said that we needed to keep murders from playing board games because of justice.

From your above comment, I kind of suspect that you don't actually disagree with me on that except in the extreme where it interferes with personal responsibility. In fact, it sounds like the two of us actually agree on a nontrivial number of actual policies (getting rid of felony boxes in job applications, giving prisoners mental stimulation, allowing them to talk to their families, even building out housing/public infrastructure in low-income areas). Aside from a concern that I'm going to lose control, completely abandon the idea of personal responsibility, justice, or human rights and go all Minority Report on the world (something that, again, I want to be clear I am not advocating for), what do we actually disagree on?

Can I extend an olive branch where we just agree that the original context of this thread (prisoners aren't being treated harshly enough by the current system) was a really bad take for both moral and pragmatic reasons?