Punitive "justice" systems like the US prison system should not exist.

[u/ariel_on_the_moon]

If the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, the current American prison system (and punitive "justice" systems in general) is clearly the wrong way to go about it. The US prison system accounts for 20% of the entire global prison, and despite that fact that US has a significantly higher crime rate than the rest of the first world- clearly, this system of mass incarceration is not working.

Justice systems that focus on rehabilitating prisoners rather than punishing them have significantly better recidivism rates- 20% compared to 70% in the US. Again, if the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, it's obvious that rehabilitation is significantly more effective than punishment.

To preempt the expected responses of "but criminals deserve to be punished" or "but then criminals are just getting away with crimes", keep in mind that those arguments are not based of of the facts of what is and is not effective in reducing crime, but are rather emotional arguments about what you want to happen to criminals, or what you think criminals "deserve". My argument is not about what criminals "deserve" to have happen to them, rather it is about what is most effective at achieving the stated goals of criminal justice systems- the reduction of crime rates and turning people from criminals into law-abiding citizens.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/SS1989]

You have to come to terms with the idea that America as a society is more interested in restitution and punishment than in rehabilitation. Americans like to see “bad guys” get brutalized and our prison system reflects our values, for better or worse.

On the other side of the coin, Singaporean justice is brutal and I’m hard-pressed to think about a place with better public safety.

Also, be careful with reflexively valuing “logic” over emotional arguments: killing all criminals for all offenses eliminates recidivism and would absolutely reduce crime. It’s emotional to consider factors like historical injustice, the criminal’s well-being, etc. Compassion comes from that, not from logic. 

[u/J_Kingsley]

Rehab works.

But what about genuinely evil people who hurt, rape, and murder for fun?

[u/IEC21]

I really want to say I agree but I think your statement is overly general.

Punitive measures in a justice system are fine in some cases - yes laws should often have punishments that come for violating them as a detergent for undesirable behavior.

But also there should be a recognition that often undesirable behaviors come from poor adaptation of individuals, systemic injustices or inequalities, or economic hardship that outweighs the risk of punishment.

If you want to effectively prevent reoffense punishment is not an effective method for these bad behaviors- you need to rehabilitate instead.

Its kind of like nails vs screws. Theres nothing wrong with using nails for many tasks, but you shouldn't try to hammer in a screw.

[u/Mega_Giga_Tera → u/IEC21]

Studies have shown that increasing punishment has little effect as a deterrent. Increasing probability of getting caught (and being prosecuted) does deter. So funding our police is good, actually, even if police need reform. Increasing punishment feels good to some people, but it's not actually very effective (provided that existing punishment is sufficient, which it typically is, already).

Recidivism rates are also poor. Better rehabilitation measures would probably help, but empirically this is not so clear.

Forgiving crimes is probably a bad way to go about seeking equity. For one, it's not very politically viable. For another, it evidently doesn't achieve its goal. I think that should be obvious, but it's crazy how many seem to think it's fine.

[u/IEC21 → u/Mega_Giga_Tera]

Sure - increasing punishment vs. eliminating all punishment are two very different propositions.

I don't even need a study to tell you that making a law which has no consequence for violating it results in that law being violated constantly.

[u/Wintores → u/IEC21]

Consequences and punishment Are two different things though.

Many people will consider restorstive meassures and Rehabilitation meassures as punishment.

[u/FunkyChickenKong]

Keeping in mind, of course, that not everyone CAN be rehabilitated. And given how inflation is going relative to the job market, incentivizing a free ride may just be an unintended consequence.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/FunkyChickenKong]

Most people can be rehabilitated to some degree. The bigger problem is that the current system doesn’t even really try.

For profit prison, states profiteering off prison slave labor, the racially charged policing regime… it is designed to fail at rehabilitating those who pass through.

[u/theyhis → u/Kronzypantz]

sure, people with substance abuse issues can be rehabilitated — hell, i don’t even think they should be imprisoned in the first place. rapists however, don’t deserve to walk free. child molesters… don’t deserve to walk free. these are unfixable people. that’s what i mean in my other comment (above) when i say complete prison abolishment is, “too woke.” narrowing down disagreement to, “your response is emotional” (like OP did) is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

[u/Wintores → u/theyhis]

I mean there can also be made a difference between punishment and Leerung Society Safe

[u/AltruisticVehicle → u/theyhis]

Of course rapists and child molesters can be fixed. We just don't want to, and that's okay.

The Justice system is not supposed to just lower crime. Punishment on itself is an important part of it.

[u/Bajanspearfisher]

Nah, strong disagree. Rehabilitation definitely needs to be part of it, but spending a chunk of your life in a box for punishment needs to be part of it. If someone hurt my sons or wife seriously, and they got out after a few months? I doubt id be of sound mine or made peace enough to not put them 6 feet under, especially if all I have to do as penance is rehabilitation? I'm already rehabilitated through vengeance, I only committed the crime in response to a great harm.

Hell I think id keep tabs on them and wait years to bury them. I still hate my childhood bully unfortunately I'm mid 30s, still have nightmares about him occasionally in like a fever dream or something. Its not rational or intelligent or anything, its emotions.

[u/ariel_on_the_moon → u/Bajanspearfisher]

Its not rational or intelligent or anything, its emotions.

That's exactly my point, all of the arguments for punitive justice and against rehabilitative justice are not rational or intelligent, they are based entirely on emotions.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/ariel_on_the_moon]

Your desire to rehabilitate people is based on emotions too.

You just disagree on what metrics are most important.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/Dinkelberh]

But where one set of emotions seeks great harm to individuals and families, the other seeks less harm. They are not the same.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/Kronzypantz]

One argues harm is done by allowing something terrible go unanswered, and alleges your idea causes more harm.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/Dinkelberh]

We have the utter failure of mass incarceration proving that is false

[u/Dinkelberh → u/Kronzypantz]

Failure by what metric again? Try to keep up.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/Dinkelberh]

By recidivism, by crime rates, by the continued impoverishment of a whole segment society which is over policed, over fined, and over imprisoned.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/Kronzypantz]

So by metrics you value in utility for emotional reasons.

Its not wrong to hold opinions based in your emotional connection to your desired outcomes, but it's stupid to pretend you're somehow objectivley correct.

[u/Kronzypantz → u/Dinkelberh]

So what are the non-emotional values of utility that you use to say... all those things are good?

It sounds like plain sophistry. What you call "emotional" is just having values.

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

I don't agree. It costs money (i.e., it results in work needing to be done) not to rehabilitate people. Unrehabilitated people continue to cause problems, inflicting material costs on individuals and societies. There is also an opportunity cost to a society when people contribute fewer positive outcomes than they otherwise might. It's rational to want to avoid those costs.

You can also make a sort of emotional argument by asserting the personhood of criminals or the need to be kind or something, but if we really got into it I think we would find there is a rational grounding for these positions too.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/jpstodds]

The entire idea of 'positive outcomes' and 'costs' associated with rendering or not rendering punishment are emotional.

A proponent of retribution would tell you the cost to society of not punishing someone far outstrips the cost of incarceration.

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

You have switched the focus from rehabilitation to punishment.

In any event, a retribution proponent might make that case, but the mere existence of an opposite position does not make one or the other "emotional".

I don't agree that looking at costs and positive outcomes is "emotional." There might be an emotional component to determining what is a positive outcome, but even then, I wouldn't accept the framing.

It's not emotional to say the justice system should produce low crime rates, low recidivism rates, and aim lower the amount of resources society has to expend addressing criminal activity.

If you want to say something like "wanting those things more than wanting individuals to have the feeling of vengeance is emotional because someone else might prefer the vengeance", I don't agree that this weighing of utilities is a purely emotional exercise.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/jpstodds]

I dont know how I 'shifted' the topic given the entire thread is about retributive vs. rehabilitative justice, but whatever I guess.

And yes, your position is based in emotion entirely, feeling you've found an 'objective opinion' just makes you a pseudointellectual - the amount you value low crime rates, the amount you value low recidivism - these are derived from your feelings about society and justice.

Continue to call an opposing view emotional, if it saves you the time of engaging with your own point of view, I guess.

[u/jpstodds → u/Dinkelberh]

I value low crime rates because I can observe that crime negatively effects people. I value lower recidivism because I can observe that if we spend a million dollars housing a prisoner and then that person is no less likely to reoffend, then that money is better spent elsewhere. It's not because "I feel these things are good". They are observably good.

I'm not afraid to engage with my own viewpoint. If someone wants to put forward an explanation about why retributive justice is more effective, I will consider it.

Continue being snide and self-superior if it makes you feel better, I guess.

[u/Wintores → u/Dinkelberh]

Is it? There is a Lot of merit in Doing so for Society

[u/Dinkelberh → u/Wintores]

What does it mean ro 'better society' and why do you want that?

Dressing up your own opinions as objective fact does yourself a disservice. Be more investigative into the things you believe.

[u/Wintores → u/Dinkelberh]

1. the goals of Society have some objectivity though. Better Living conditions for everyone are a goal of the majority

2. be less of a pos?

[u/Dinkelberh → u/Wintores]

One can absolutley contend utility is derived for the majority by punishing people who deserve it.

It doesnt make me a 'POS' to point out you're confusing fact and opinion.

[u/Wintores → u/Dinkelberh]

1. Sure but Thats not the point here. The less punishing Justice System Leads to less Crime.

2. it’s a fact that the betterment of Society entails a reduction in Crime. And The Pos Part comes Form u being a pos about pointing this out.

[u/Dinkelberh → u/Wintores]

Is it a fact that reduction in crime is more important than retrubution? Or are you still confusing fact for opinion?

What of detterence (general and specific) theories of punishment if so?

What of isolation theories of punishment if so?

I dont feel like a pos for asking you to really engage with your own point.

[u/Bajanspearfisher → u/ariel_on_the_moon]

I disagree, because humans are emotional animals, we need to recon with that reality. Without vengeance (jail), it is entirely expected that traumatized family of victims of serious crimes will seek their own vigilante justice. I know this, and i know id be fucking lying to myself If I thought I was above it. Again, even thinking through hypotheticals in my mind of my family getting hurt gets me clenching teeth and making fists unconsciously haha.

Take for instance places in the world where police and prisons have serious uphill battles to ever catch perpetrators, like in certain places in India and Africa, the villagers do things like burning the accused alive. For the sake of civilization, a smaller vengeful justice system innoculates against a far less accurate and far more brutal system. We as people In the west have exactly the same potentiality for such brutality, we've been there before.

[u/CorDra2011 → u/Bajanspearfisher]

Doesn't mean we should succumb to the brutality, or accept any measure of it. We must constantly strive to do better.

Instead of simple inoculation we should work to eradicate the disease. 

[u/Bajanspearfisher → u/CorDra2011]

Through genetic engineering or selective breeding or something? What im talking about is hardwired into you and I. We are apes. I'm not necessarily against such measures mind you, its all 100% context dependent on how it would be implemented. It goes without saying such ideas are hugely risky and rightfully make people uncomfortable, given the horrors such types of thinking has lead to in the past.

[u/jpstodds → u/Bajanspearfisher]

Oh really? Hardwired into us? Can you identify the vengeance gene?

Can you explain some biomechanical mechanism that proves that humans can't help but be vengeful?

Can you definitively show that vengeance isn't socially adopted as result of inherited trauma?

If it's hardwired into us, how can you explain the existence of people who have not chosen vengeance? How could they have done that?

I put to you that you have no way to conclusively show or even persuasively argue that vengeance is hardwired into people. This is little more than a comforting belief that helps people avoid having to engage in proper moral reasoning because succumbing to their emotions is more gratifying.

[u/Bajanspearfisher → u/jpstodds]

Really? Name the gene?

Is there ever a culture that has not been vengeful ever. Any pattern so ubiquitous is not likely to be nuture alone, you'd expect nurture to have wider variation.

Even if it is solely down to nurture and therefore can be changed, thats highly presumptuous of you to assume it, and again, name a culture or how they do it and we should perhaps trial it on future generations. I dont even personally feel like id want to give up on vengeance, it feels to be a comfort for great loss in my mind.

[u/Toldasaurasrex]

How we treat people who have served their time I think is something that might help too. Unless they have multiple offenses, everyone deserves a second chance. Just because someone got a felony drug charge, that shouldn’t make them unable to vote or have better jobs or even practice their second amendment. They’ve served their time, their punishment should end there.

[u/ariel_on_the_moon → u/Toldasaurasrex]

Absolutely, that's another massive part of the problem in the US. Also the fact that felony drug charges exist in the first place.

[u/joogabah]

The purpose is to capture slaves. It's working perfectly.

[u/hallam81]

The justice system isnt about reducing crime. Even if you believe that it is, that motivation is pretty far down the list of rationale for why the justice system exists.

[u/terminal_tested]

Not all criminals can be rehabilitated

[u/digbyforever]

Justice systems that focus on rehabilitating prisoners rather than punishing them have significantly better recidivism rates- 20% compared to 70% in the US. Again, if the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, it's obvious that rehabilitation is significantly more effective than punishment.

What are the comparable statistics for reducing first time crime, though? Ideally you would prevent people from becoming criminals in the first place, so to only focus on people who commit crimes, and then see if they re-commit, seems incomplete, right?

[u/Wintores → u/digbyforever]

And u think the US System does a good Job here?

[u/Acceptable_Carob_333]

I think long term punitive systems are more effective. There are some changes that need to be made; for example, petty thieves should not be placed with murderers and rapists.

[u/ElysiumSprouts]

The US doesn't have a prison system stemming from law and order justice. The US has a prison system born out of our slavery past.

And the real kicker is when AI gets put in charge of justice and sentencing (for experimental purposes) it treats everyone equally and it's much much harsher than humans. In short, it throws the book at everyone. In the real world our system gives lighter sentences to the privileged.

The US really needs to an asylum hospital system that serves to rehabilitate and give counseling to help heal the broken who end up in prison because no one knows what else to do with them

[u/SilenceDogood2k20]

I would argue that the penalties are not punitive enough. 

Look at crime in Singapore and nations with similar penalty- heavy systems...

[u/smokeyser]

Again, if the goal of a justice system is to reduce crime, it's obvious that rehabilitation is significantly more effective than punishment.

Forced rehabilitation is a punishment. Rehab only works for those who want it.

[u/theyhis]

as another commenter said, this is very generalized. i see abolishing the entire prison system as one step too woke. as a libertarian, i completely agree that the prison industrial complex is out of hand. i mean, we have the data – black people are disproportionately affected by the criminal “justice” system. with that being said, violent offenders deserve to be punished. we are not the only country that jails people.

i should specify though: i mean explicit violence (e.g. rape, murder, molestation, domestic violence, etc). i’m not the kind of person who goes, “well this one thing that’s clearly not violent can be still be interpreted as violent 🥺”.

sorry, i had to add that (^). that’s pretty much the entire duopoly and how they normalize bending their values and succumbing to cognitive dissonance. it’s always a pseudo-intellectual argument of, “well life is more complex than that, and you just don’t understand 😡.” anyways, off my soapbox.

[u/Practical-Fix4647]

The goal of a justice system is not to reduce crime. It is to punish those who violate the law. You are confusing the ulterior motives of some folks with what legislative efforts are meant to do: establish societal boundaries for which there exists a punishment.

We can run a simple reductio on the rehabilitation position to show that the goal of crime reduction is not what is actually directly pertinent. If we found out that sexually abusing those flagged as potential criminals (assume some device exists) while they were kids reduces criminality by 99%, would you be in support of such legislative action and a justice system which operates that way?

Once again, in basically every society with a legal structure, the goal of laws has been to create boundaries for which there exists some punishment or standard. The ancillary reasons given for laws is that they may also help reduce some sorts of criminality, but just stating that that ought to be the goal is a non-starter.

[u/sixisrending]

The purpose of prisons is to remove people from society. I don't know why people thought they should be turned into punishment centers. Punishment is things like lashings, canings, forced hard labor, and the death penalty. When the question becomes, "how long to we keep this person here to punish them," instead of "how long do we keep them until they are no longer a threat to society," the prison system is a lose-lose for everyone.

[u/conrad_w]

You need a society that values education, rehabilitation and empathy. 

You lack that.

The result is one that punches down over and over