> The ultimate goal of prison is to reintegrate people in the society.
I don't understand that. If we're worried about criminals' integration with society then we shouldn't put them in prison. Prisons exist to separate people from society.
> Do you have any idea how quaint the idea of real rehabilitation is, at an actual prison?
This seems pretty easily and cheaply fixable. Information access is nearly free, and all that's required is sufficient discipline and structure provided by prison staff.
> removing all the bad guys and thus leaving behind only good guys doesn't work
Isn't that the entire idea of the penal model? The primary purpose of imprisoning people is to keep the rest of us safe from them (incapacitation). A tiny minority of people commit most crime (especially violent crime), and imprisoning them for long terms does in fact reduce the crime rate[1]. As we seem to agree (and research supports), other interventions are ineffective on many of these people.
Per my other comment[2], I think we can do this much more cheaply than we do, and with much better (or at least equivalent) outcomes. I also recommend this documentary[3], for a deeper look at the Japanese penal system. It tries to take a critical perspective, but my neck is just about sore from nodding along in agreement with Japanese practices.
1. F E Zimring, G Hawkins (1995). Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime.
> what is the point of prison? Is it a place wherein troubled individuals can receive treatment and be corrected so that they may be reintegrated at some point and become functioning and productive members of society?
It's never been the first objective of prison. Prison exists to ensure the people who are dangerous or detrimental to society remain excluded from roaming in the streets and causing more trouble.
This whole idea of "prison to reeducate people" is very much a creation of recent history.
> The philosophy in the US seems to be that you just have to change people
I'm not sure what you mean by this. To me it looks like prisons in US are a good business and good for business due to cheap slave labor. Many places have for profit prisons, high repeat offense rates and ridiculous incarceration rates.
This is all from an external point of view, I'm not from the US.
>No, I'm talking about incarceration in the USA. There's a huge difference between that and what's happening in China.
I was aware of that when responding. In fact, when I said:
"There are valid reasons to separate some folks from the rest of society (think John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, etc.), as they've shown themselves to be unable/unwilling to respect the rights of others within that society.
Incarceration as a tool of punishment, while widely used, often poses more risk of harming society than any benefit from "punishing" offenders.
It's a complex issue, and simplifying it to "Law and order! Lock 'em up!" is reductive and often detrimental to the societies it's supposed to improve."
> Also your conclusion at the end is completely wrong. Prison excludes people from society. Letting them exist in society by imposing some rules is exactly the opposite.
> The entire point of prison is to remove them from society.
That is the immediate effect, for sure. But that isn't the issue.
Unless someone is convicted for life without parole, or a death penalty, then they likely will be released into the general population at some point.
Do you want them to have skills that might allow them to support themselves, or do you think a near term investment in education might be cheaper for society and more humane than releasing them with a situation where they have fewer opportunities to make a living?
>Prisons suck at rehabilitating people and thus just make things worse in the long run when you release the people.
I'm not involved in the system personally, but I do remember someone bringing up this sentiment in another thread, and a person responding with some stats showing that prison rehabilitation programs are way more effective than the average person thinks. There are some great people working in the sector that genuinely prevent criminals from returning to their old ways.
I guess it's just one of topics (like homelessness or immigration) where a lot of people have strong, differing opinions but reality says one thing clearly.
Prisons exist primarily to control threats from society. And secondarily to punish people for getting caught breaking rules, partially for vengeance and partially for deterrence.
Societies have tried other methods of controlling threats beyond imprisonment, including (but definitely not limited to) ankle bracelets, public shaming, shunning, exile, offender registries, altering brains via chemicals, brainwashing, torture, or surgery, altering bodies via sterilization or mutilation, death, even collective punishment.
So prisons aren't great, but they're better than many of the alternatives.
On a personal note: that crime of any kind is even possible in a 100% controlled environment speaks to the malicious incompetence of those administering the prisons, and to our shameful collective thirst for vengeance. As with people, judge a society by how they treat the least powerful.
This sounds a little like an appeal to tradition, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Removal from society is absolutely one of the intended purposes of prison, but as with all traditions it must be open to challenge and debate.
Because prison is barbaric, and expensive and should be saved for hardened criminals. Nothing personal, but it's people like you who think throwing people in prison some kind of societal solution that we have overflowing prisons of petty criminals.
> Being in the prison system is far worse than lack of freedom. That's why prison reform is so important.
Or maybe that is kinda the point of prison? I’m all for nonviolent offenders to go into rehabilitation etc etc... but for the violent... prison is supposed to be shit, or am I missing something?
Isn't this the main idea behind modern jails? (Idea, not implementation)
reply