5 ms·

Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

mfoy_ 11y ago
>Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Because criminals are still human. I can't believe I have to actually say that...
atonparker 11y ago
Getting a strong Poe's Law vibe here. Are you asking why humans need to be treated humanely?
dtmooreiv 11y ago
Because they're human? Because wrongful convictions happen? Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.[1] [1] -pdf warning http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%2...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment. Good point. I suspect its even more based on the perceived marginal increase in likelihood of punishment if an act which is intended to be deterred is committed vs. if it is not. Certainty of punishment is one factor that weighs in that, but certainty of nonpunishment of the act is not committed is also a factor.
mizzao 11y ago
Evidence? Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes. They might think about whether they will be caught.
- hugh4 11y ago
  > Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes Selection bias. The sort of people who think about prison when committing crimes are the sort of people who don't commit crimes. The criminal class is drawn almost entirely from those who suck at thinking ahead.
nkoren 11y ago
> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Because to treat a human being like they are not a human being makes you evil. > Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them? Data says: no. Beyond the simple deterrence of losing one's liberty (which is significant), the harshness of prison has no real deterrent effect -- but does serve to acclimate prisoners to violence, coercion, and anti-social behaviour. What prison does is rehabilitate, or fail to rehabilitate. That is the metric which matters.
- MarcusVorenus 11y ago
  Why would it be evil? It is merely self-defense. Why do we need to treat savages like little princesses just because they happen to be human? I mean if a dog acts too aggressive it gets put down and nobody complains, but if it's a human then it's totally different? I just can't see any logic to it other than people wanting really hard to feel morally superior. I'm asking rhetorically btw, I already know you guys don't have a rational explanation. You can downvote away now.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    Because the way you're recommending treating them means they come out with no job skills, atrophied social skills, and otherwise ill-adapted for society. Thus, they'll turn to the only tool they have, and they end up right back in. Your method is far from a deterrent, it'll just encourage recidivism and lead to ever more populated jails. Treating people humanely ends up being a lot cheaper in the long run.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    Why would it be evil? It is merely self-defense. No, locking up a dangerous person so that they are unable to harm society is self defense. Treating them inhumanely is at best petty vengeance.
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    And this sort of retributive thinking has nothing to do with "feelings of moral superiority"? The only argument that makes sense is the one that gets the best results, and it turns out treating people like subhuman trash has rather negative results in the long run.
thesteamboat 11y ago
> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them? I don't think this is true. More precisely, it's obviously true that extremes can change how much of a deterrent effect there is, (e.g. if prison is a 5-star resort people might prefer to be inside than out), but your position is like trickle-down economics. The Laffer curve certainly exists in the sense that governments collect less revenue from taxing either 0% or 100% than they do from some intermediate amount. But using this tautology to assert we should categorically lower taxes ignores the crucial question of where we are in that curve. Importantly there seems to be a fairly inelastic response to changes in sentencing; drastic changes in sentencing seem not to generally change criminal behaviour (see a wealth of statistics on the death penalty, also the crime rate collapse since the 90's). To decide whether we want to make prisons more or less humane we need to address the purpose of prisons. If you think prisons are primarily for justice/punishment, I'd urge you to consider the numerous lapses of our legal system, the fact that ~95% of prosecutions end in plea bargains instead of trials, endemic prosecutorial overreach, and the severe shortage of adequate counsel/public defenders for the poor. Additionally, consider the "three felonies a day" complaint --- that laws are poorly and vaguely written, general to the point of absurdity, and opaque --- which means that you could probably be convicted of something by a sufficiently zealous prosecutor. If you think prisons are primarily about effecting good outcomes for the rest of society I'd argue that a system that focuses on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism will necessarily be more humane. Finally, as others have said though it bears repeating, we (as society) should treat people humanely. Full Stop. Not because they are human, but because we are.
- Terr_ 11y ago
  It's not even a "curve" really, it's simply an observation that 0% tax and 100% are probably local-minima.
MaysonL 11y ago
Because they're human beings. Torture is evil.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Answered in the post you respond to: "Human interaction is crucial to rehabilitation"

mfoy_ 11y ago

>Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Because criminals are still human. I can't believe I have to actually say that...

atonparker 11y ago

Getting a strong Poe's Law vibe here. Are you asking why humans need to be treated humanely?

dtmooreiv 11y ago

Because they're human? Because wrongful convictions happen? Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.[1] [1] -pdf warning http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%2...

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment. Good point. I suspect its even more based on the perceived marginal increase in likelihood of punishment if an act which is intended to be deterred is committed vs. if it is not. Certainty of punishment is one factor that weighs in that, but certainty of nonpunishment of the act is not committed is also a factor.

mizzao 11y ago

Evidence? Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes. They might think about whether they will be caught.

hugh4 11y ago
> Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes Selection bias. The sort of people who think about prison when committing crimes are the sort of people who don't commit crimes. The criminal class is drawn almost entirely from those who suck at thinking ahead.

nkoren 11y ago

> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Because to treat a human being like they are not a human being makes you evil. > Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them? Data says: no. Beyond the simple deterrence of losing one's liberty (which is significant), the harshness of prison has no real deterrent effect -- but does serve to acclimate prisoners to violence, coercion, and anti-social behaviour. What prison does is rehabilitate, or fail to rehabilitate. That is the metric which matters.

MarcusVorenus 11y ago
Why would it be evil? It is merely self-defense. Why do we need to treat savages like little princesses just because they happen to be human? I mean if a dog acts too aggressive it gets put down and nobody complains, but if it's a human then it's totally different? I just can't see any logic to it other than people wanting really hard to feel morally superior. I'm asking rhetorically btw, I already know you guys don't have a rational explanation. You can downvote away now.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  Because the way you're recommending treating them means they come out with no job skills, atrophied social skills, and otherwise ill-adapted for society. Thus, they'll turn to the only tool they have, and they end up right back in. Your method is far from a deterrent, it'll just encourage recidivism and lead to ever more populated jails. Treating people humanely ends up being a lot cheaper in the long run.
- serge2k 11y ago
  Why would it be evil? It is merely self-defense. No, locking up a dangerous person so that they are unable to harm society is self defense. Treating them inhumanely is at best petty vengeance.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  And this sort of retributive thinking has nothing to do with "feelings of moral superiority"? The only argument that makes sense is the one that gets the best results, and it turns out treating people like subhuman trash has rather negative results in the long run.

thesteamboat 11y ago

> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them? I don't think this is true. More precisely, it's obviously true that extremes can change how much of a deterrent effect there is, (e.g. if prison is a 5-star resort people might prefer to be inside than out), but your position is like trickle-down economics. The Laffer curve certainly exists in the sense that governments collect less revenue from taxing either 0% or 100% than they do from some intermediate amount. But using this tautology to assert we should categorically lower taxes ignores the crucial question of where we are in that curve. Importantly there seems to be a fairly inelastic response to changes in sentencing; drastic changes in sentencing seem not to generally change criminal behaviour (see a wealth of statistics on the death penalty, also the crime rate collapse since the 90's). To decide whether we want to make prisons more or less humane we need to address the purpose of prisons. If you think prisons are primarily for justice/punishment, I'd urge you to consider the numerous lapses of our legal system, the fact that ~95% of prosecutions end in plea bargains instead of trials, endemic prosecutorial overreach, and the severe shortage of adequate counsel/public defenders for the poor. Additionally, consider the "three felonies a day" complaint --- that laws are poorly and vaguely written, general to the point of absurdity, and opaque --- which means that you could probably be convicted of something by a sufficiently zealous prosecutor. If you think prisons are primarily about effecting good outcomes for the rest of society I'd argue that a system that focuses on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism will necessarily be more humane. Finally, as others have said though it bears repeating, we (as society) should treat people humanely. Full Stop. Not because they are human, but because we are.

Terr_ 11y ago
It's not even a "curve" really, it's simply an observation that 0% tax and 100% are probably local-minima.

MaysonL 11y ago

Because they're human beings. Torture is evil.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Answered in the post you respond to: "Human interaction is crucial to rehabilitation"