[rektide]

I had. British India payed people to hunt & turn in Cobras & people of course started breeding Cobras[1] to collect money on them.

None the less, it sucks a lot that society is basically punching itself in the face to punish & scar people.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

[rsj_hn]

Society is spending a lot of money (far too much money) to keep dangerous people outside of society. That New York can't do this competently or cost-effectively does not mean that society would be better off if these people were put back on the street.

A larger question is whether anyone can warehouse prisoners cost effectively. That's when you start thinking about exile, banishment to a remote island, or other mechanisms of expelling dangerous/undesirable people without actually locking them up in a small room for years. This latter point is indeed not necessary to protect society and seems to be unnecessarily costly. The problem is that no other society is likely to accept New York's criminal classes -- we have run out of Australias. In a world without Australias, another option might be to pay some other country to take them, revoking their US citizenship and preventing re-entry for a certain number of years equal to the time of their sentence (or permanently in the case of murder). That would be much cheaper than keeping them in prison, and I'm sure you could find a number of countries willing to take them for 10% of what New York spends per year, as many nations have a GDP per capita far less than 50K/year, and would even be able to furnish a decent quality of life for half that and keep the rest for themselves.

[asymptosis]

> keep dangerous people outside of society

This kind of assumption about prisoners is unhelpful. Not everyone who goes to jail is "dangerous". Laws are made based on the lowest common denominator, not universal demarcations between goodies vs baddies.

Ex-con here, got in trouble about a decade ago (non-violent crime) when I was in my early 30s. Did my year inside and didn't even get into any fights. Turns out most prisoners are actually fairly reasonable if you don't go causing trouble with them. Keep your eyes open and your mouth shut, that's all you have to do.

I kind of found prison beneficial, in that it gave me time to reflect on how I had been shooting myself in the foot, and what I should do to be a better person in future. And I haven't been in any trouble since leaving.

But was it the optimal way for me to learn the lessons I needed to learn? I'm not sure about the answer to that question, but I can tell you what would have been a really stupid idea: pack me off to some corrupt 3rd world country for a year without easy ways for friends and family to visit me and support my transition back out into the community after release.

[rsj_hn]

> This kind of assumption about prisoners is unhelpful.

It is a category error to call my statement helpful or unhelpful, since it's not my intention to help further any kind of agenda other than basic realism.

People, when they sit down in a bar, want some assurance that the person sitting next to them didn't get into a fight and smash a broken bottle into their neighbor's face. People taking their kids to school would like to know that their teacher didn't sleep with the kids. People sleeping in their homes at night would like to know that there isn't someone breaking and entering into their homes. People saving for their retirement would like to know that someone isn't running off with their pension. Someone running a business would like to know that there aren't burglars walking around that break into shops at night and steal their inventory. Everyone wants those who do this gone, gone from the group. Some may also want them punished, but I'm not being emotional here. Others fantasize about reforming people, when there is scant evidence that this is possible, but one way or another, society needs to purge itself of its criminal classes.

Note that not all of the above are "violent", but for society to work there needs to be cooperation, and for cooperation to work there needs to be trust. In order to maintain a steady state in which you can trust your neighbors well enough to be part of an advanced high-trust society, certain people who abuse that trust need to be removed from society, because not everyone is or can be trustworthy. In fact, it matters not at all who they are or why they did what they did. All that matters is their impact on social trust and their suitability for being part of the cooperating group. Hence my suggestion that we try to find some other group for them, rather than locking them up in a little room.

If you do not do that, you simply lose the high-trust society. Now there are men with shotguns guarding the entrance to every store. Bars around every window. And the whole society becomes a type of dysfunctional prison for everyone. Enormous costs are borne by everyone when we lose social trust, and it is the desire to avoid these costs that is the reason why we kick people out that we no longer trust to be peaceful, law abiding members of the group. There are many societies which don't have this trust, and very few of us would want to live there. There you often see the wealthy hiring their own private security and maintaining their own separate little bubble while everyone else is subject to the vagaries of a low-trust society. As the US becomes more "liberal" in attitudes, the same thing is happening here, except home prices effectively segregate into bubbles of high and low trust. Gated communities are becoming much more popular.

Those of us who still believe that a high trust society is possible in the US value being able to walk down the street without being assaulted, or that we don't need to live in a gated community with constant armed patrols, we don't want to program our cars to avoid low income areas. And this luxury should be afforded to everyone, not just those who can afford to self-segregate into high income bubbles. But in order have a high trust society, we have to expel a certain subset. It doesn't particularly matter if you don't like that this is a basic trade off.

> Not everyone who goes to jail is "dangerous"

There is a huge focus on violence, as if it's OK to say, burn down buildings, loot pension funds, or break into homes as long as no one gets hurt physically. The arsonist or conman need to be removed from a cooperating society just as much as the man who assaults people in bars. A lot more than a lack of violence is required in order for cooperation to be possible. Before deciding whether theft should be grounds for removal from society, go to a place where theft is very common and see how you enjoy living there. Look at the enormous security costs that must be paid by everyone. Look at the suspicious treatment everyone receives. Then decide whether removing people who serially steal is a worthwhile goal.

Now in terms of whether our laws have this right, that's a question for a debate on judicial reform, not prison reform. If you want to make the case that a certain type of crime doesn't warrant a prison sentence, that's fine by me, but IMO this is off-topic.

[asymptosis]

> A lot more than a lack of violence is required in order for cooperation to be possible.

You predicated everything you said on the dangerousness of criminals. Now it seems like you're backpedalling.

Overall, your response shows a tendency towards hyperbole. How to manage crime is a complicated topic; you seem prone to catastrophising the worst, and this catastrophising leads to unrealistic conclusions like "let's pack them all away and make them a problem for some other country."

There are lots of things we would like to trust about people around us. Eg, we would like to trust that we can make mistakes in life and that there is a way to come back from those mistakes.

[rsj_hn]

No, I said "dangerous", not violent, and specifically those who are a threat to the public order. You interpreted that to mean only "violent", but I include arsonists, burglars, those who sexually assault, and those who steal pension funds as "dangerous to society", just as much as those who assault and kill.

This is completely obvious to most people. Others talk about "peaceful protests" when a city is burned to the ground and think there is some magical line that allows one to destroy a person's home and livelihood but as long as no one is punched, then it's OK and no prison time is needed.

[_RPL5_]

The primary goal of the penitentiary system is to reform criminals and to reintegrate them into society as productive members. A reformed criminal is worth infinitely more than a person who you sent away and who is now contributing zero. We should focus on improving this high-level function of prisons, rather than look for new australias.

But as far as NYC goes: yes, 500k is a lot. NY taxpayers should look into why it costs so much.

[smabie]

I don't think people agree on the primary goal. Most people think there is an element of justice and repaying a debt to society. Also keeping them off the streets so they can't do more harm. Certainly rehabilitation comes into play as well, but I don't think society would accept pure rehabilitation, even if the data supported it.

For example, imagine if data shows the best way to rehabilitate any criminal is to give them 1mil. Imagine the uproar from the families of murder or rape victims at the policy. We just wouldn't accept it.

[throwawaysea]

I don’t think that’s the goal or at least not a primary goal. I would say the main goal is to contain criminals so the rest of society can live without impact from their harmful actions. The second goal, for me at least, is to create consequences that are very real and difficult to bear, to deter other would-be criminals. The next goal down might be reform or rehabilitation, but as a taxpayer I am just as happy to contain the problem if it is cheaper to do so. I’m not sure I’m missing anything with the “zero productiveness” you’re talking about.

[oneplane]

That's the goal on paper. In practise it seems like it's mostly a 'make the problem go away' facility as people going in don't generally come out 'better'. And once you've been, you're tainted for life. So does it make anything better? Does it 'reform' anyone? So far it seems to be mostly punishment and control and nothing else.

[goldcd]

My take is that a lot of the people jailed, aren't that dangerous.

Issues with Education, Mental Health, Crappy Families, Substance abuse etc all seem to wash up in the criminal justice system - like somebody being lazy with their exception handling.

If I had to guess why it's not working, it's that every cog in the system is doing the job they've been asked to do (police are arresting, prosecutors are sentencing, jailers are filling shiny jails etc). There's no single person responsible for the system, who's in a position to change it. You'd think a politician might try - but all opposing sides will take a pop at 'soft on crime' if they try. Mercy/Pragmatism doesn't play well.

Similar to those giant soviet factories - there's one way to do it, it's always been done this way and each worker will add a cog to keep those shitty tractors coming off the production line. Nobody will be rewarded for solving the problem.

Actually, maybe that's the answer - free-market rehabilitation. At sentencing put fulfilment of sentence out to tender - with cash payable on results. 50% up front, then 10% a year after release until they re-offend (or die).

[torgian]

There's a sci-fi novel I read recently that puts criminals on islands that are inaccessible by any means other than air. The worst sentences are sent there for life in exile, to fend for themselves.

Other lesser crimes are kept in your normal prison.