At 4:09 PM -0700 7/4/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Sampo Syreeni
But just as Tim argues, the latter always involves cost-effectiveness too...There should always be a sufficient, predictable cost associated with putting people away to guard against criminalization for convenience, prudence and political gain only.
I'm sure that "cost-effectiveness" has a role to play here. I just don't agree that the cost savings of parole are all that big a factor. The US has more prisoners per capital than just about anyone (I think the US is surpassed by Russia and maybe South Africa). So we've already made the decision that we can afford to lock up a lot of people.
Also, the assumption that locking up more people comes at some sort of linear increase in costs. One of the simplest answers is to just overcrowd the facilities "we" already have.
No, I think Tim and Sampo have the cart before the horse. We have the criminal laws we have because that feeds the government, not because we save so much with parole. Eliminating parole by overcrowding or by building still more prisons would increase, not decrease human suffering.
Honestly, would you rather wear a ankle transponder or be Bruno's bitch?
This is that chestnut of a logical fallacy called "false alternatives." (Or "false dilemma.") The choice is not just between an ankle transponder and being Bruno's bitch. Sampo and I are both arguing that the costs of making things illegal is no longer as visible as it once was, especially as when local jurisdictions had to make a choice between building a school or a jail. These costs have been hidden from the voters and taxpayers in the usual ways: -- by bundling costs and shifting them great distances -- by hiding the costs in bond issues which fool people into thinking that new prison won't cost anything -- by not actually _needing_ the additional prison space. I'm not saying there is a simple cause-and-effect relationship between parole and criminalization, that parole caused more criminalization of activities. Things are more complicated and nuanced than that. But what I _am_ saying is that both trends have gone hand-in-hand, and the results are made _worse_ by having so many people on parole. And if things go on (another logical fallacy, I realize), we are heading towards a situation where a large chunk of the U.S. (and world, as other nations are copying our schemes) population is disenfranchised, can't own firearms, has no expectation of being secure in papers and possessions, and which may even be restricted in other ways in the future. The fact that your friend got out on parole after 7 years is nice, for her. (Jeez, even murderers rarely face more than a few years, and I know of an arsonist who is getting no prison time at all, just a very long period of "parole.") --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns