RE: Most of a nation on probation?
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
Yep, the US does lock a whole lot of people up. But what about the constant whining about "overflowing prisons", then.
Unfortunately, "whining" is just that. Not much is done about it.
Or the many instants where prisoners are put on parole en masse to cut costs and/or to free up prison real estate?
That's really a separate problem having to do with our insane mandatory sentencing laws (primarily for drug-related offenses). When they do release folks, they are usually the ones convicted of really vicious crimes.
There would be ways to control this too. One way is to make it possible for inmates to sue for damage due to overcrowding and the violence it causes. This would make for a superlinear increase in cost, and eventual balancing in the density of inmates.
Well that would be nice, but why not focus in on the real problem, too many laws? Forget suing, leave parole alone, just get rid of the myriad of laws.
From the standpoint of individual freedom, one might argue that more people are now hurting.
Than what, Utopia? That isn't the choice now. It's between getting out or staying in a hell-hole prison. Nobody is hurt by parole. Get rid of the laws and the parole issue goes away by itself.
...the cost of putting people away should be high enough to become prohibitive for anything but the most serious of crimes.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. It's not, so why fantasize? Nobody is hurt by parole, itself. Eliminate the bad laws, they are the real problem. S a n d y
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Unfortunately, "whining" is just that. Not much is done about it.
Bull, see forward... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Or the many instants where prisoners are put on parole en masse to cut costs and/or to free up prison real estate?
That's really a separate problem having to do with our insane mandatory sentencing laws (primarily for drug-related offenses). When they do release folks, they are usually the ones convicted of really vicious crimes.
I agree that that too has a part in it, and that mandatory sentencing is a genuinely braindead idea. However, it has a lot more to do with who gets to walk than with somebody having to be let out in the first place. The primary reason is that the society simply isn't willing to invest enough in prisons to carry the load, contrary to what you originally claimed.
One way is to make it possible for inmates to sue for damage due to overcrowding and the violence it causes. [...]
Well that would be nice, but why not focus in on the real problem, too many laws? Forget suing, leave parole alone, just get rid of the myriad of laws.
That's just the point -- you can't. The political machine simply does not work that way, which is seen by the proportion of new laws passed to old ones stricken. The reasons are well known (one common way to lump the reasons is to call them "political suicide"), and are pretty difficult to get around without resorting to the kind of ass-backwards trickery we've been describing.
From the standpoint of individual freedom, one might argue that more people are now hurting.
Than what, Utopia?
Than anywhere else in the world. Especially note that, even if it clearly doesn't lead to the most effective disincentive on crime, Europeans' fairly humane attitudes towards prison inmates largely serve the purpose Tim and I are after with the cost talk. The mechanism isn't nearly as important as the underlying necessity of imposing a real cost on governments' harmful activities. That is the only way that really works; goodwill simply does not get things done.
That isn't the choice now. It's between getting out or staying in a hell-hole prison.
Not true. The same argument you use, i.e. that habitual restrictions on freedom can be traded for at least /some/ freedom, can be used to argue that you can always sacrifice your freedom in order to stay out of jail in the first place. Just obey the law, however senseless it might be. It's /certainly/ better than being hauled into the hellhole.
Nobody is hurt by parole.
I hope that was meant as a joke.
Get rid of the laws and the parole issue goes away by itself.
Talk about Utopia... Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
The primary reason is that the society simply isn't willing to invest enough in prisons to carry the load, contrary to what you originally claimed.
I don't think I claimed that. I said that the cost curve wasn't strictly linear. Before they release prisoners, the crowding must first become unbearable. So that means prisons are all running along the ragged edge of overcrowding. This makes parole a MUCH better deal for the prisoner, which was my point.
That's just the point -- you can't [get rid of the laws]. The political machine simply does not work that way,
Well if so, it certainly doesn't allow for your solution. We have seen countries and jurisdictions relax their drug laws, for example. Remember, the US repealed an anti-drug constitutional amendment. If they can go through all the sturm und drang required to repeal an amendment, I don't see why mere statutes can't be undone.
From the standpoint of individual freedom, one might argue that more people are now hurting.
Than what, Utopia?
Than anywhere else in the world.
Well, American prisoners are in American prisons. This discussion has been about the situation in the US vis-`-vis, parole.
Europeans' fairly humane attitudes towards prison inmates largely serve the purpose Tim and I are after with the cost talk. The mechanism isn't nearly as important as the underlying necessity of imposing a real cost on governments' harmful activities. That is the only way that really works; goodwill simply does not get things done.
So let me get this straight. You thing getting Americans (the majority of whom favor the death penalty) to buy "kinder, gentler" prisons is going to be easier than getting them to repeal bad laws? Yeah, that's going to happen.
That isn't the choice now. It's between getting out or staying in a hell-hole prison.
Not true. The same argument you use, i.e. that habitual restrictions on freedom can be traded for at least /some/ freedom, can be used to argue that you can always sacrifice your freedom in order to stay out of jail in the first place.
You are correct, it can. Scary, huh? But my point is still true people WHO ARE ALREADY IN PRISON would prefer to be under restrictive parole than in some hell-hole prison. You said "not true," but do you really believe prison is preferable, even your "kindler, gentler" European prisons?
Nobody is hurt by parole.
I hope that was meant as a joke.
Nope, dead serious when compared to the alternative. Did I need to make that explicit? So folks, I'm going off to celebrate my dwindling freedoms this Independence Day by going to a movie with a pretty girl. Please feel free to argue among yourselves in my absence. :-D S a n d y
At 05:55 PM 7/4/01 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: Remember,
the US repealed an anti-drug constitutional amendment. If they can go through all the sturm und drang required to repeal an amendment, I don't see >why mere statutes can't be undone.
That was a different US. *That* US had to pass a constitutional amendment to control *that* drug in the first place. Different country. They actually respected the constitution then.
participants (4)
-
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
Sampo Syreeni -
Sandy Sandfort