The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Here's an interesting related question:
Do extremely harsh punishments short of death have a deterrent effect? For example, that county in Arizona (IIRC) where that sheriff makes his prisoners live in tents, eat bread and water, and work on chain gangs--does it have lower crime rates than other counties in Arizona? Or perhaps lower rates of convicts re-offending?
That would be Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. Basically Phoenix and a nice chunk in the middle of the state. http://www.mcso.org/
He feeds the inmates a little better than bread and water but he does make them all wear pink underwear (it was supposedly to keep people from stealing the jail's stuff). A lot of them do live in tents even in the summer. The tents started as a cheap alternative to building more jails or letting people go early.
There are 29 tents of male Working Inmates, 10 tents of female Working Inmates, and one control "Tower" of non-working fully sentenced male inmates in this Section. The tent compound includes a 60' observation tower (with a pink neon Vacancy sign) which is manned around the clock. The average daily population in In-Tents is about 1,000 inmates. Three detention officers are typically assigned to supervise "the yard".
Con-Tents Section:
There are 20 tents of Work Furlough and Work Release male inmates, and seven tents for Work Furlough and Work Release female inmates in this Section. The average daily population is nearly 400 inmates.
Pup-Tents Section:
The Pup-Tents Section has five large tents. The facility is capable of housing up to 100 male juvenile inmates who have been convicted and sentenced as adults. The compound also has a modular building with two high school classrooms, offices, and showers.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
Skelron wrote:Okay I'm a little nervous about two minutes ago I left a lecture on Crime and Japan was brought up. Japan according to some theories is an example of reintegrative Shaming, and a Communitarian culture. For a start they are 20 Times less likely to send a convicted criminal to Prison than in the US. Rather they hold Public Apologies for their Crimes all very ritualised and where they put aside the part of them that commited the crime. (I assume some measures are taken to assure the person is sincere.) Once the person has gone through this it is placed behind them and they can start again without having it hang over their heads, preventing a Sub-Culture of Crime forming. The Idea is to shame the Crime not the individual and to provide a sense of closure to both victim and criminal.
(which is what is argued occurs in western attempts at Shaming where we create a situation where a person who commits a Crime is left stigmatised and unable to rejoin mainstream society...)
Actually I read an excellent article on a judge in the US who did something similar. He would find a way of publicly humiliating the person, or putting the people in the victims place as a method of punishment. For instance a person who was charged with littering had to pickup all the cigarette butts by a highway overpass. After that, they found out how much litterbugs. A person who was caught shoplifting had to stand in the store for a few hours for few days wearing a sign which read,"I shoplifted from this store. Don't let this be you" There are a few more examples, I'll see if I can find them.
"Though there are only 5 colours, in combination, they can create more hues then can ever be seen" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Guy N. Cognito wrote: Actually I read an excellent article on a judge in the US who did something similar. He would find a way of publicly humiliating the person, or putting the people in the victims place as a method of punishment. For instance a person who was charged with littering had to pickup all the cigarette butts by a highway overpass. After that, they found out how much litterbugs. A person who was caught shoplifting had to stand in the store for a few hours for few days wearing a sign which read,"I shoplifted from this store. Don't let this be you" There are a few more examples, I'll see if I can find them.
You've got to be weary but it sounds like the Judge was attempting to apply the theory of Resorative Justice. The basic idea is that there are two types of Shaming you can do. The first is good the other bad. The Bad sort places a person outside of Society, and does include prison in many areas. (not that prison is necc bad under Restorative Justice, just not always the best answer. For instance it is not a good answer if it will give a person a increase in status amongest his mates. Or if it is an outsider who suddenly finds a group of people to fit in with etc.) The basic problem with what is called Destructive Shaming is the creation of the Sub-Culture where unable to escape because people remember you as a criminal or you have a permanment record you fall in with others like you forming the Sub-Culture effect where doing time is a part of the life, and even admired in some ways...
And the Restorative kind where you draw attention to the Crime and say society won't accept it, but you don't tar the person forever. (no records following them the rest of their life. It also helps to have the type of Communitarian culture of Japan. although Restorative Justice does also admire the indivdualism of the West it seeks a middle ground between indivdual US/UK society and the Communitarian basis of say Japan.
basically simply shaming the person in such a way that they cannot really rejoin proper society afterwards does more harm than good under this theory.
From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Given that humans generally fear pain more then death, I would think it would have at least a slight effect. Making it harder to avoid the death penalty for a murder would probably have a major effect as well. Perhaps we should make it so that when you plead guilty to murder one, that's just to avoid being tortured to death, as opposed to current 'humane' methods. Course that would also mean fewer people woul confess and we'd need more expensive trials.
this would probably result in a whole bunch of people confessing crimes that they didn´t commit. to avoid torture most peopele would do almost everything.
Guy N. Cognito wrote: Actually I read an excellent article on a judge in the US who did something similar. He would find a way of publicly humiliating the person, or putting the people in the victims place as a method of punishment. For instance a person who was charged with littering had to pickup all the cigarette butts by a highway overpass. After that, they found out how much litterbugs. A person who was caught shoplifting had to stand in the store for a few hours for few days wearing a sign which read,"I shoplifted from this store. Don't let this be you" There are a few more examples, I'll see if I can find them.
You've got to be weary but it sounds like the Judge was attempting to apply the theory of Resorative Justice. The basic idea is that there are two types of Shaming you can do. The first is good the other bad. The Bad sort places a person outside of Society, and does include prison in many areas. (not that prison is necc bad under Restorative Justice, just not always the best answer. For instance it is not a good answer if it will give a person a increase in status amongest his mates. Or if it is an outsider who suddenly finds a group of people to fit in with etc.) The basic problem with what is called Destructive Shaming is the creation of the Sub-Culture where unable to escape because people remember you as a criminal or you have a permanment record you fall in with others like you forming the Sub-Culture effect where doing time is a part of the life, and even admired in some ways...
And the Restorative kind where you draw attention to the Crime and say society won't accept it, but you don't tar the person forever. (no records following them the rest of their life. It also helps to have the type of Communitarian culture of Japan. although Restorative Justice does also admire the indivdualism of the West it seeks a middle ground between indivdual US/UK society and the Communitarian basis of say Japan.
basically simply shaming the person in such a way that they cannot really rejoin proper society afterwards does more harm than good under this theory.
Restorative justice is mainly an alternative approach to our current system of Retributive justice. The justice system assumes that inprisonment will be just punishment that will also deter a person from committing another crime, through either permanent or temporary incapacitation.
Restorative justice seeks to make the offender accept responsibility for his/her crime and repair (or help resolve in some manner, depending on the offense) the harm done. It is focused more on the real victim (i.e. the actual person(s) harmed) rather than the State, which according to the criminal justice codes is the victim.
Our society does a lot shaming to offenders, especially after they've been released from jail/prison. There are a good number of laws currently that prevent ex-cons from living in public housing or being hired for certain jobs. These laws basically tell the former convicts that their debt to society has not been paid, and will never be paid because of the restrictions placed upon them. This tends to leave many ex-cons with few options for employment, or at least a job that pays them enough to survive on, therefore many end up reverting back to the criminal acts that got them incarcerated in the first place.
...and that's just the tip of the iceberg on the reforms needed in the current US Criminal Justice system...
There's too much blood in my caffiene system! When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade other countries. SoS:NBA Because boys are icky
Guy N. Cognito wrote: Actually I read an excellent article on a judge in the US who did something similar. He would find a way of publicly humiliating the person, or putting the people in the victims place as a method of punishment. For instance a person who was charged with littering had to pickup all the cigarette butts by a highway overpass. After that, they found out how much litterbugs. A person who was caught shoplifting had to stand in the store for a few hours for few days wearing a sign which read,"I shoplifted from this store. Don't let this be you" There are a few more examples, I'll see if I can find them.
You've got to be weary but it sounds like the Judge was attempting to apply the theory of Resorative Justice. The basic idea is that there are two types of Shaming you can do. The first is good the other bad. The Bad sort places a person outside of Society, and does include prison in many areas. (not that prison is necc bad under Restorative Justice, just not always the best answer. For instance it is not a good answer if it will give a person a increase in status amongest his mates. Or if it is an outsider who suddenly finds a group of people to fit in with etc.) The basic problem with what is called Destructive Shaming is the creation of the Sub-Culture where unable to escape because people remember you as a criminal or you have a permanment record you fall in with others like you forming the Sub-Culture effect where doing time is a part of the life, and even admired in some ways...
And the Restorative kind where you draw attention to the Crime and say society won't accept it, but you don't tar the person forever. (no records following them the rest of their life. It also helps to have the type of Communitarian culture of Japan. although Restorative Justice does also admire the indivdualism of the West it seeks a middle ground between indivdual US/UK society and the Communitarian basis of say Japan.
basically simply shaming the person in such a way that they cannot really rejoin proper society afterwards does more harm than good under this theory.
Cool, what level of criminology did you learn this in? I'll have to look out for that read when my wife gets into this area, it sounds interesting. Does anybody know anything else about the Japanese Criminal Justice system, it sounds interesting.
"Though there are only 5 colours, in combination, they can create more hues then can ever be seen" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Well I'm in my Third year and it's a Module of my Course. The Module is Crime-Community and Public Service. However I personally don't study Criminology and came at it from My Politics Course. (one of the shared Modules basically)
From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '
For me yes, the Module is tought by the Criminolgy department however. But the Module is of interest to the Politics division as well due to the Community part. It looks at both the basic approachs to Punishment and the approach to the community within the theorys.
From a review of the two Towers.... 'As for Gimli being comic relief, what if your comic relief had a huge axe and fells dozens of Orcs? That's a pretty cool comic relief. '
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Here's an interesting related question:
Do extremely harsh punishments short of death have a deterrent effect? For example, that county in Arizona (IIRC) where that sheriff makes his prisoners live in tents, eat bread and water, and work on chain gangs--does it have lower crime rates than other counties in Arizona? Or perhaps lower rates of convicts re-offending?
It seems to me that if prison was a miserable, horrific experience, even idiots would want to not go back there; and thus if they had been caught once, demonstrating their inability to escape, they would not want to reoffend for fear of going back to such a place.
There's a common saying in Arizona. Go there on vacation, leave on probation. I doubt it's much of a detterent, it's just something else that shows sheriff Joe is an ass. Did he get reelected, I'm not in that state anymore.
Please kids, don't drink and park: Accidents cause people!
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Here's an interesting related question:
Do extremely harsh punishments short of death have a deterrent effect? For example, that county in Arizona (IIRC) where that sheriff makes his prisoners live in tents, eat bread and water, and work on chain gangs--does it have lower crime rates than other counties in Arizona? Or perhaps lower rates of convicts re-offending?
It seems to me that if prison was a miserable, horrific experience, even idiots would want to not go back there; and thus if they had been caught once, demonstrating their inability to escape, they would not want to reoffend for fear of going back to such a place.
There's a common saying in Arizona. Go there on vacation, leave on probation. I doubt it's much of a detterent, it's just something else that shows sheriff Joe is an ass. Did he get reelected, I'm not in that state anymore.
Yes he did and I voted for him damn it.
Punish the guilty because they deserve it.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Darth Wong wrote:I have often heard that "deterrent does not work", based on a lack of statistically significant improvement in murder rates when the death penalty is implemented. Is there any other evidence to support this claim? Because the conclusion that "deterrent does not work" based on the distinction between life in prison and death is definitely over-reaching. To take an extreme example, if there was no punishment for any crime, the crime rate would certainly skyrocket. So it is clearly wrong to say that "deterrent does not work". At best, one can only say that there is no statistically significant evidence that the death penalty is sufficiently more severe than life imprisonment to have a noticeable deterrent effect (some might even consider life imprisonment to be worse).
So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?
well there is the increase in violent crime in an area immediatly surrounding an execution bit I have heard reported but can not substatiate.
actually the closest to substatating it I can find is that when Pick pocketing was a capitol offense, pick pocket's prefered to work the crowds at hangings, and bar room brawls would more often turn murderous. -Colin Wilson, casebook of murder describing 18th century crime and punishment
The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Here's an interesting related question:
Do extremely harsh punishments short of death have a deterrent effect? For example, that county in Arizona (IIRC) where that sheriff makes his prisoners live in tents, eat bread and water, and work on chain gangs--does it have lower crime rates than other counties in Arizona? Or perhaps lower rates of convicts re-offending?
It seems to me that if prison was a miserable, horrific experience, even idiots would want to not go back there; and thus if they had been caught once, demonstrating their inability to escape, they would not want to reoffend for fear of going back to such a place.
There's a common saying in Arizona. Go there on vacation, leave on probation. I doubt it's much of a detterent, it's just something else that shows sheriff Joe is an ass. Did he get reelected, I'm not in that state anymore.
Yes he did and I voted for him damn it.
Punish the guilty because they deserve it.
His "tent city" isn't completely for the guilty.... many people waiting there are simply on trail and unable to make baill!
If you're going to vote at least understand what you're voting about. Last thing this nation needs is another idiot voter.
Please kids, don't drink and park: Accidents cause people!
SirNitram wrote:Punishing the innocent? How delightfully 18th century.
Alright, lets build a jail specifically for those who are only suspected of a crime.
A jail is supposed to house the guilty. It has a secondary function of holding the suspected if they cannot make bail(and mose can, one way or the other, unless it is murder or soemthing)
WHy should we design our punishment facilities around the secondary function rather than the primary one?
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
SirNitram wrote:Punishing the innocent? How delightfully 18th century.
Alright, lets build a jail specifically for those who are only suspected of a crime.
A jail is supposed to house the guilty. It has a secondary function of holding the suspected if they cannot make bail(and mose can, one way or the other, unless it is murder or soemthing)
WHy should we design our punishment facilities around the secondary function rather than the primary one?
Yes! Damn those suspected. How dare they be suspected of a crime they may or may not have committed. They should be punished for their terrible behavior!
Again. How very 18th century of you.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
SirNitram wrote:Punishing the innocent? How delightfully 18th century.
Alright, lets build a jail specifically for those who are only suspected of a crime.
A jail is supposed to house the guilty. It has a secondary function of holding the suspected if they cannot make bail(and mose can, one way or the other, unless it is murder or soemthing)
WHy should we design our punishment facilities around the secondary function rather than the primary one?
Yes! Damn those suspected. How dare they be suspected of a crime they may or may not have committed. They should be punished for their terrible behavior!
Again. How very 18th century of you.
nice strawman.
Look, Most suspects are released on bail or even on their own recognizance(sp) they usually dont spend the time until their court date in the jail. Only f their crime was very serious will they be placed there.
ANd if we dont make the jail uncomfortable enough, it will not serve its primary function, which is punishment of misdemeanors. The fact that some innocent people may spend some time there is unfortunate, but it is unavoidable.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Look, Most suspects are released on bail or even on their own recognizance(sp) they usually dont spend the time until their court date in the jail. Only f their crime was very serious will they be placed there.
Or if they can't make bail. But you have failed to demonstrate this is enough to punish someone who is not proven to have done anything wrong.
ANd if we dont make the jail uncomfortable enough, it will not serve its primary function, which is punishment of misdemeanors. The fact that some innocent people may spend some time there is unfortunate, but it is unavoidable.
Yes. It's unavoidable that the innocent will suffer inconveniences. Therefore, it's perfectly fine to punish them as harshly as the guilty.
Again. I liken this disgusting ethical position of yours to the 18th century. Again, you have no real rebuttal, except trying to evade the fact they're only suspects by saying 'BUT THEY WON'T BE THERE UNLESS IT'S SERIOUS!'. And everyone arrested on suspicion and held in a jail is guilty? Not hardly.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
I admit that it shouldnt be this way(punishing the innocent as harshly as the guilty) but do we have alternatives that wont involve massive tax hikes?
It it wrong? Yes. Can we do anthing about it and still punish the guilty, and avoid having to raise taxes to ungodly levels? no. We cant release potentially llethal murderers and rapists on their own recognizance. Especially if they are flight risks. Therefore they must be held.
The only place we have to hold them, is in a county jail
The primary function of a jail is to punish those who are found guilty.
Therefore, unless there is a means of seperating the populations into suspects and convicts(which I suspect is done, though I am not sure of the ins and outs of any particular jail having never been to one) there is no alternative but to keep suspects in similar conditions to the guilty, which are generally dsigned to be a punishment, and therefore uppleasant.
I never said it was right, I merely said it is a necessary evil. Unless you want to build a massive new "Suspect Holding facility". which would cost millions of taxpayer dollars that would have to be taken from road construction or education because *gasp* any increases in taxes in AZ has to have a 2/3rds supermajority in the state congress IIRC and we MUST have a balanced budget each fiscal year, as per our state constitution.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:I admit that it shouldnt be this way(punishing the innocent as harshly as the guilty) but do we have alternatives that wont involve massive tax hikes?
Actually, yea. But you were too busy furiously masturbating to the 18th century ideals of the libertarian government that you missed that I was answering a strawman with a strawman.
Despite your refusal to stop and think it's possible to house people in these tent cities and not work them. But hey. Anything to try and discredit the side speaking for actual protections of the suspected.
<Snip one big strawman fallacy of my entire position, because Aly's refusing to engage his three pounds of grey matter.>
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Despite your refusal to stop and think it's possible to house people in these tent cities and not work them. But hey. Anything to try and discredit the side speaking for actual protections of the suspected.
Um... they do house people in tent city and not put them in the chain gangs... the chain gangs are reserved for delinquent teens who have been found guilty already.
Sure, they all have to wear pink uniforms, but there is actually a jail and it does have cells. And there is another jail on Madison street which is less unpleasant.
Must have gotten the wires crossed, I thought you were arguing that they should not be housed in the same facilities.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
They shouldn't. At least, not in tent city, it's a punishment in and of itself. Sheriff Joe is a fascist jackass who has been shown to be one by many, many organizations. About the only people who haven't brought him to task on his jackassed policies have been the people of Arizona. Not to mention, totally unrelated, that Arizona is a "right to get fucked over..." er.. "right to work" state.
Please kids, don't drink and park: Accidents cause people!
but he does make them all wear pink underwear (it was supposedly to keep people from stealing the jail's stuff). A lot of them do live in tents even in the summer. The tents started as a cheap alternative to building more jails or letting people go early.
