What is the point of prison?

[swansonj]

To avoid thread diversion in the non-binary thread.

... most women prisoners, and a substantial proportion of men, shouldn't be inside at all.

There are a lot more men and women who should be in prison but aren't.

Prison undeniably serves a purpose in some cases by keeping off the streets someone who would otherwise be committing more crimes.

Beyond that, what is the point? Is it much of a deterrent? Does it provide much rehabilitation? Or do we believe in some abstract sense of a crime requiring punishment (the scales must balance)?

 

[Xipe Totec]

It always appears to distill down to two basic perspectives, which, perhaps unsurprisingly, tend to fall either side of that same old political divide. Depending on the colour of your scarf, it's either for public protection and rehabilitation, or it's for public revenge.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Lots of reasons - to reform, to punish, to protect the rest of us, because there's no point having laws unless you punish people for breaking them. Which aim should be paramount depends on your political views I suppose.

Trouble is, there isn't the political will from any side to provide the money to be 'tough on the causes of crime', nor to rehabilitate offenders properly whilst they are in jail or support them adequately when they leave.

In the US the decrease in crime from the late 1990's onwards is in part due to wider availability of contraception and abortion. Women had fewer children and were better able to look after the ones they had. There are lots of ways to reduce crime that don't involve locking people up, but they cost money.

 

[newfhouse]

It always appears to distill down to two basic perspectives, which, perhaps unsurprisingly, tend to fall either side of that same old political divide. Depending on the colour of your scarf, it's either for public protection and rehabilitation, or it's for public revenge.

Politics aside, isn't doing what works the aim? By works I mean a balance of punishment, deterrence and prevention of reoffending. We don't seem to be as effective at two of those things as some other countries. Why not?

 

[Salty seadog]

In the US the decrease in crime from the late 1990's onwards is in part due to wider availability of contraception and abortion. Women had fewer children and were better able to look after the ones they had. There are lots of ways to reduce crime that don't involve locking people up, but they cost money.

That's a side swipe for me, the first time I've heard that. 👍

 

[BoldonLad]

Lots of reasons - to reform, to punish, to protect the rest of us, because there's no point having laws unless you punish people for breaking them. Which aim should be paramount depends on your political views I suppose.

Trouble is, there isn't the political will from any side to provide the money to be 'tough on the causes of crime', nor to rehabilitate offenders properly whilst they are in jail or support them adequately when they leave.

In the US the decrease in crime from the late 1990's onwards is in part due to wider availability of contraception and abortion. Women had fewer children and were better able to look after the ones they had. There are lots of ways to reduce crime that don't involve locking people up, but they cost money.

Is there actual evidence for that, or, is it an assumption? If there is evidence, and, it is true, why have we not experienced a similar reduction?, or, indeed, have we?

 

[BoldonLad]

Politics aside, isn't doing what works the aim? By works I mean a balance of punishment, deterrence and prevention of reoffending. We don't seem to be as effective at two of those things as some other countries. Why not?

Seems like a reasonable objective, to me.

 

[swansonj]

Lots of reasons - to reform, to punish, to protect the rest of us, because there's no point having laws unless you punish people for breaking them. Which aim should be paramount depends on your political views I suppose.

Trouble is, there isn't the political will from any side to provide the money to be 'tough on the causes of crime', nor to rehabilitate offenders properly whilst they are in jail or support them adequately when they leave.

In the US the decrease in crime from the late 1990's onwards is in part due to wider availability of contraception and abortion. Women had fewer children and were better able to look after the ones they had. There are lots of ways to reduce crime that don't involve locking people up, but they cost money.

Politics aside, isn't doing what works the aim? By works I mean a balance of punishment, deterrence and prevention of reoffending. We don't seem to be as effective at two of those things as some other countries. Why not?

Could you unpack for me the concept "to punish" as something distinct from deterrence, protection, or reformation?

 

[newfhouse]

Could you unpack for me the concept "to punish" as something distinct from deterrence, protection, or reformation?

When you put it like that, no. It has no value other than as a means to deliver the other objectives.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Could you unpack for me the concept "to punish" as something distinct from deterrence, protection, or reformation?

Well it just means that there should be serious consequences for behaviour that harms others I suppose. If there's no punishment, there's no deterrent. Some might call it revenge I suppose but it does satisfy the human need for retribution after a serious crime, which stuff like community service might not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Is there actual evidence for that, or, is it an assumption? If there is evidence, and, it is true, why have we not experienced a similar reduction?, or, indeed, have we?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...abortion-may-have-reduced-americas-crime-rate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

There certainly seems to be a statistical correlation between the increased availability of abortion and a decrease in violent crime rates, though it could also involve other factors.

I would imagine it had less effect in the UK because we have the welfare state, tax credits etc, which provides more support to the poor than in the US. Additionally, we've had NHS abortions for a long time so it would be difficult to compare the UK stats.

There's a known link between poverty and crime so having fewer unwanted children born into poverty would be a reasonable explanation for some of the reduction.

 

[newfhouse]

If it wasn't so damned sad for all concerned, Texas could be an interesting field trial over the next few years. I don't know what latency we should expect between cause and effect.

 

[PK99]

In the US the decrease in crime from the late 1990's onwards is in part due to wider availability of contraception and abortion. Women had fewer children and were better able to look after the ones they had. There are lots of ways to reduce crime that don't involve locking people up, but they cost money.

That argument is put very well in one of the Freakonomics books. I'm surprised it has not bobbled up again in the current Roe V Wade issues in the US

 

[Cirrus]

To avoid thread diversion in the non-binary thread.


Prison undeniably serves a purpose in some cases by keeping off the streets someone who would otherwise be committing more crimes.

Beyond that, what is the point? Is it much of a deterrent? Does it provide much rehabilitation? Or do we believe in some abstract sense of a crime requiring punishment (the scales must balance)?

To give society a brief respite while the criminals hone existing skills and learn new tricks of the trade?

 

[Deleted member 28]

To give society a brief respite while the criminals hone existing skills and learn new tricks of the trade?

Sounds about right, unfortunately the money isn't there to rehabilitate these people. My lad often has 2 Officers to 60 cons, what are they supposed to do?

Plus in this day and age the law is always on their side so they have to treat them with kid gloves but this is what you lot want right?