I am not gonna spend time detailing out what other people have said on this, but just go and check out what Angela Davis says on it all. punishment does not work, it is not helpful, and the ideological ways it imposes itself upon the rest of society via that dehumanisation are toxic
"Are Prisons Obsolete" is a great critique of modern U.S. prisons, but it doesn't offer much in the way of alternate ideas on how to handle crime. As I recall, it also doesn't look at foreign prisons that radically change what imprisonment looks like:
"This is like living in a holiday camp," Mikko*, a prisoner at Ojoinen open prison near the city of Hämeenlinna, told Yle News.
Mikko's view is pretty common, and it's not without foundation. Prisoners in the Nordic country get their own rooms, access to plenty of recreation and are transferred to open prisons quickly to prepare for their release...
Once the working day is over and the evening meal has been eaten and cleared away, the prisoners are free to spend their time as they wish. There are exercise areas, television rooms and many prisoners have video game consoles in their cells. Mikko, who served the first part of his sentence at a closed prison, welcomes the freedom of choice and movement that he enjoys at Ojoinen -- and the wider atmosphere it creates -- compared to his earlier prison experience...
"It is hard to argue that open prison systems don’t work," says Tyni. "You can consider the system as a progressive system where a prisoner starts his or her sentence in a closed prison, moves later into an open prison, continues to electronic monitoring out in society and lastly to parole. It is a step-by-step process based on an individual sentence plan."
Critiquing the current system is good, but it's not enough. It has to be accompanied by ideas on how to do things better.
It actually does. Doesn't mean it's very good but it very much does work, albeit not always. But it's not exactly an earth shattering revelation that sometimes the reason people don't do illegal stuff because they're afraid of punishment. That book has a major issue, which is that while it's fine as a critique of prisons in the US, but if it's supposed to show you can just not have punishment/prisons or something it doesn't really do that. There's a difference between reforming and improving, even radically changing punishment and focusing on restoration and rehabilitation and completely rejecting the idea of punishment, which is just something that won't ever work.
But it’s not exactly an earth shattering revelation that sometimes the reason people don’t do illegal stuff because they’re afraid of punishment.
To elaborate on this, deterrence literature usually focuses on three separate aspects of punishment:
Severity of punishment
Certainty of punishment
Swiftness of punishment
The consensus is that certainty matters a lot, and severity matters much less. There's some research that suggests swiftness matters more than severity, too, or at least is a significant factor in deterring crime.
Short term, there's enough evidence that severe punishments don't do much to deter crime to support dramatically ratcheting back whatever punitive measures we're handing out. Long term, I could see ways to increase swiftness of punishment that wouldn't make the system less fair (e.g., significantly expand the capacity of the legal system so defendants can get quality representation much more quickly). What's really difficult is the certainty piece. It's hard to think of ways to make punishment more certain that wouldn't expand the already-ubiquitous surveillance state.
Yes, I'm not arguing severity vs certainty vs swiftness or whatever, just that punishment in general is a deterrent.
Swiftness btw is good in general not just for punishment. I have a friend who took about 8 years to be acquitted after being arrested in a protest. 8 years of your life spent in trials and under restriction is way too long, especially when you were acquitted anyways
Good point about how swiftness would help people wrongly accused of crimes, too. Note also that many people in your friend's situation would take a plea deal so they can get back to life (especially if they're in pretrial custody), leading to innocent people getting criminal records.
Agree with everything you've said, just wanted to add that contemporary attempts to increase certainty (mandatory minimums etc) have all leaned towards more severe punishment, in ways that risk unjust outcomes.
I am not gonna spend time detailing out what other people have said on this, but just go and check out what Angela Davis says on it all. punishment does not work, it is not helpful, and the ideological ways it imposes itself upon the rest of society via that dehumanisation are toxic
"Are Prisons Obsolete" is a great critique of modern U.S. prisons, but it doesn't offer much in the way of alternate ideas on how to handle crime. As I recall, it also doesn't look at foreign prisons that radically change what imprisonment looks like:
Critiquing the current system is good, but it's not enough. It has to be accompanied by ideas on how to do things better.
It actually does. Doesn't mean it's very good but it very much does work, albeit not always. But it's not exactly an earth shattering revelation that sometimes the reason people don't do illegal stuff because they're afraid of punishment. That book has a major issue, which is that while it's fine as a critique of prisons in the US, but if it's supposed to show you can just not have punishment/prisons or something it doesn't really do that. There's a difference between reforming and improving, even radically changing punishment and focusing on restoration and rehabilitation and completely rejecting the idea of punishment, which is just something that won't ever work.
To elaborate on this, deterrence literature usually focuses on three separate aspects of punishment:
The consensus is that certainty matters a lot, and severity matters much less. There's some research that suggests swiftness matters more than severity, too, or at least is a significant factor in deterring crime.
Short term, there's enough evidence that severe punishments don't do much to deter crime to support dramatically ratcheting back whatever punitive measures we're handing out. Long term, I could see ways to increase swiftness of punishment that wouldn't make the system less fair (e.g., significantly expand the capacity of the legal system so defendants can get quality representation much more quickly). What's really difficult is the certainty piece. It's hard to think of ways to make punishment more certain that wouldn't expand the already-ubiquitous surveillance state.
Yes, I'm not arguing severity vs certainty vs swiftness or whatever, just that punishment in general is a deterrent.
Swiftness btw is good in general not just for punishment. I have a friend who took about 8 years to be acquitted after being arrested in a protest. 8 years of your life spent in trials and under restriction is way too long, especially when you were acquitted anyways
Good point about how swiftness would help people wrongly accused of crimes, too. Note also that many people in your friend's situation would take a plea deal so they can get back to life (especially if they're in pretrial custody), leading to innocent people getting criminal records.
Agree with everything you've said, just wanted to add that contemporary attempts to increase certainty (mandatory minimums etc) have all leaned towards more severe punishment, in ways that risk unjust outcomes.