Prisons, a necessary institution?

[Tom Jones]

I do belive that we can all agree that if you commit a crime, you must be punished. The debate I would like to start is how we as a society punish said criminals.

In modern societies, it is expected that criminal elements are robbed of their freedom and locked away in a correctional institution to serve a judgement passed down on them by a rightful and just institution of law.

Considering the above, here's my point:
What good does it do to lock criminal elements away? Psychology studies clearly shows that in order to change a individual's behaviour, one most first change the individial's environment. I hardly think that moving an indivual from one criminal environment to another is changing said individual's environment. Also proven by science is, that isolation of a individual from the rest of a society reduces the isolated individual's empathy and compassion for individuals living in the unisolated society. We become their enemies, it happens subconsciously, so there isn't much we can do about it. Lastly let me point out that societies label those who have been in a correctional institution, we automatically look down upon them and constantly questions their integrity, thus creating a negative stereo-type of those that have been incarcerated. If those persons ever get send back to prison, the before mentioned stereo-type will reflect on the person being imprisonned, leaving him or her feeling worthless, both it'll also reflect on society, acknowledging the stereo-type as fact!

Considering the above I can only come to one conclusion: Prisons are contra-effective, they try to serve a good purpose but end up making the problem much much worse.

But if we don't lock criminal elements away, what alternatives do we then have?

I propose preventive solutions for example keeping a watchful eye on parents and the child's environment, acting before the child turn to a criminal life. It requires a great amount of resources such as special training of teachers and other personel dealing with children and a large child service sector, but in the end I do believe that I'll benefit the society. I think it'll be able to reduce criminal elements going in and out of correctional institutions by a considerable amount.

Please feel free to post your views on prisons, their effects on inmates and possible alternatives to prisons.

 

[Darthfett]

I do belive that we can all agree that if you commit a crime, you must be punished. The debate I would like to start is how we as a society punish said criminals.

In modern societies, it is expected that criminal elements are robbed of their freedom and locked away in a correctional institution to serve a judgement passed down on them by a rightful and just institution of law.

Considering the above, here's my point:
What good does it do to lock criminal elements away? Psychology studies clearly shows that in order to change a individual's behaviour, one most first change the individial's environment. I hardly think that moving an indivual from one criminal environment to another is changing said individual's environment.

Freedom is something that everyone has, and keeps as long as they abide by the laws of society. If you overstep your freedoms, and infringe on another person's, you then lose your own freedom.

How can you consider the removal of freedoms as not being a change in environment? In prison, you don't work for money to pay for ownership. You no longer have the freedom to travel and visit friends. You lose your rights.

Someone may have been arrested for murder, stealing, robbery, or many other crimes. Although some may have been in a "criminal environment", you cannot assume they all were. A person arrested for drinking and driving may have just been driving home from a party. A person who is arrested for physical violence, whether it is physical assault, abuse, or murder, could have accidentally done what they did, or have just overreacted in anger.

Also proven by science is, that isolation of a individual from the rest of a society reduces the isolated individual's empathy and compassion for individuals living in the unisolated society. We become their enemies, it happens subconsciously, so there isn't much we can do about it.

But what ARE we to do with criminals who continuously steal and kill? Removing them from the environment gets rid of any possibility of another attempt. You cannot make the punishment fit the crime for those who steal, because some of them have nothing. They will only steal more, because they cannot survive without. And what about the person who kills? Other than killing his life, the only other option is to take away his weapon, his freedom to travel.

Lastly let me point out that societies label those who have been in a correctional institution, we automatically look down upon them and constantly questions their integrity, thus creating a negative stereo-type of those that have been incarcerated. If those persons ever get send back to prison, the before mentioned stereo-type will reflect on the person being imprisonned, leaving him or her feeling worthless, both it'll also reflect on society, acknowledging the stereo-type as fact!

Are you trying to say that criminals are not criminals? Let's face it, they broke the law. There's different levels of crimes. A person who steals food from a supermarket merely to survive does not get years of time in prison. A felony is reserved for the extreme crimes. Criminals who commit felonies are the ones who have threatened human life. They have shown they would rather destroy the life of another human, than have theirs threatened. This breaks society's laws, and infringes on the freedoms of other people.

Considering the above I can only come to one conclusion: Prisons are contra-effective, they try to serve a good purpose but end up making the problem much much worse.

They are very effective, as they completely remove the problem's source, and prevent future problems.

I propose preventive solutions for example keeping a watchful eye on parents and the child's environment, acting before the child turn to a criminal life. It requires a great amount of resources such as special training of teachers and other personel dealing with children and a large child service sector, but in the end I do believe that I'll benefit the society. I think it'll be able to reduce criminal elements going in and out of correctional institutions by a considerable amount.

This violates many laws. You cannot watch people because they have the right to live private lives. You cannot act before a child turns to criminal life, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

While reduction is always a good thing, it will never get rid of the problem completely. There's always exceptions, and we still have to have consequences.

The way I feel about it, prisons are effective. They get rid of the problem's source by isolating the problem, and they deter many potential criminals away from breaking societies laws.

The way I see it, there is no alternative to prisons. While I understand that criminals will not be getting any better, they will be learning their lesson. There has to be some consequence for breaking laws, otherwise chaos will break out.

 

[thewrongvine]

It really is annoying, dealing with criminals.

Prison sometimes works, but then like you said, it can sometimes make it worse.

Death Penalty!
-is mean. Since innocent people die sometimes and killing is just the same as the criminal.

Since there's not much of another choice, I believe that for the time being, prison is necessary.

~Hai-Bye-Vine~

 

[Bronxernijn]

In modern societies, it is expected that criminal elements are robbed of their freedom and locked away in a correctional institution to serve a judgement passed down on them by a rightful and just institution of law.

That is half. Prisons are also meant to keep criminals away from society.

Considering the above, here's my point:
What good does it do to lock criminal elements away? Psychology studies clearly shows that in order to change a individual's behaviour, one most first change the individial's environment. I hardly think that moving an indivual from one criminal environment to another is changing said individual's environment.

A prison is in fact a different environment.

Also proven by science is, that isolation of a individual from the rest of a society reduces the isolated individual's empathy and compassion for individuals living in the unisolated society. We become their enemies, it happens subconsciously, so there isn't much we can do about it.

Is it not a lack of empathy and compassion for others that made them commit a crime in the first place? Also, prison is not a fully isolated environment, people aren't in their cells all day getting food through a shutter. It is a more isolated society than the 'real' society.

Furthermore, being locked up isn't nice for most of us, so you don't want to end up there again, preventing you from committing crimes in the future. That only works for small crimes, so that is why (at least where I live) there is also forced psychologic treatment after the prison sentence for people who committed big crimes, like murder.

Lastly let me point out that societies label those who have been in a correctional institution, we automatically look down upon them and constantly questions their integrity, thus creating a negative stereo-type of those that have been incarcerated. If those persons ever get send back to prison, the before mentioned stereo-type will reflect on the person being imprisonned, leaving him or her feeling worthless, both it'll also reflect on society, acknowledging the stereo-type as fact!

Isn't that a thing you should change in society? You could, for example, give companies financial bonuses if they hire people who used to be in jail. If the stereo-typing is unjustified, this will both lift negative views about people who used to be in jail and allows for easier re-integration in society.

I propose preventive solutions for example keeping a watchful eye on parents and the child's environment, acting before the child turn to a criminal life. It requires a great amount of resources such as special training of teachers and other personel dealing with children and a large child service sector, but in the end I do believe that I'll benefit the society. I think it'll be able to reduce criminal elements going in and out of correctional institutions by a considerable amount.

Would work I think, but it costs far too much to be realized. There is also a lot of families living on the edge of society, it is very hard to get a little grip on those families.
Special training of teachers requires teachers to become something like psychologists and teachers combined, which would require more intelligent teachers and more salary.
Acting is also pretty hard. Want the kid to have psychologic tests to see if it has criminal potential? Parents have the right to refuse. Watching kids with tested potential? Privacy laws, some scandals in the media, nobody wants it anymore.

I think having more preventive measures is good, but not to that extent you mention. I think the most important thing is to get everyone involved in society. I think the most important thing is having a job and to have friends. You can get people jobs, but you can't get them friends. Prevention is in my opinion pretty limited, but I think there should be more prevention than there is now.

 

[Samael88]

I just want to add an argument to your discussion, it leans a bit towards the whole death penalty discussion aswell, but it can be used here aswell.

If I pay taxes, then I pay for the prisons, right?
Say I have a daughter, and she get's killed by some jerk using an uzi or something. The court sentence him to jail for like 8years or something.

Now, this is where the odd stuff comes in:
Jerk kills daughter. check.
Jerk goes to prison where he get's free meals and roof over his head for 8 years.
Who pays for that?
Me

I might aswell tell him this in the courtroom: Have fun on your vacation, I will be happy to pay for it.

It's maybe a bit exadurated, but it's true, is it not?

 

[Zakyath]

It's maybe a bit exadurated, but it's true, is it not?

I'd say it's quite stupid. Death penalty is more expensive than locking someone up.

We should focus less on punishing and more on rehabilitating

 

[Darthfett]

Death penalty is more expensive than locking someone up.

You're kidding, right? We have to pay for food, pay for guards, and pay for every single thing this prisoner gets. The prisoners who get the death penalty would be getting life in prison if not the death penalty. That's a LONG time to be paying for all of that.

Jerk goes to prison where he get's free meals and roof over his head for 8 years.

Whether this is considered a "vacation" depends on what prison he goes to. This is the reason we like Joe Arpaio as a sheriff here in Arizona. He cuts costs down by getting rid of all the 'luxuries' of prison (no cable tv, pink underwear, cheaper food, etc).

Isn't that a thing you should change in society?

Exactly.

You could, for example, give companies financial bonuses if they hire people who used to be in jail. If the stereo-typing is unjustified, this will both lift negative views about people who used to be in jail and allows for easier re-integration in society.

I think this is the wrong way to do it. Picking up ex-cons for work, and getting even more profit? Not exactly a bright idea. Too much potential for abuse and corruption.

Lastly let me point out that societies label those who have been in a correctional institution, we automatically look down upon them and constantly questions their integrity, thus creating a negative stereo-type of those that have been incarcerated. If those persons ever get send back to prison, the before mentioned stereo-type will reflect on the person being imprisonned, leaving him or her feeling worthless, both it'll also reflect on society, acknowledging the stereo-type as fact!

Let me stress again that that's the reason we have the difference between a felony and a petty crime. Those who make a stupid mistake, but not a huge mistake do not pay for it the rest of their lives. They only learn their lesson. Those who make a huge mistake should pay for it for the rest of their lives. Companies should also have the right to know what kind of person they are hiring. That's why they're allowed to ask if an applicant has been convicted of a felon.

 

[Zakyath]

>You're kidding, right? We have to pay for food, pay for guards, and pay for every single thing this prisoner gets. The prisoners who get the death penalty would be getting life in prison if not the death penalty. That's a LONG time to be paying for all of that.

Humdidum...

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

Oh, I almost forgot- there's statistics that proves that less people commit murders if there's no death penalty.

 

[Azlier]

I don't see how death penalty could be more expensive. They strap you to a chair, and shock you. Done.

>there's statistics that proves that less people commit murders if there's no death penalty.

There are also statistics that say 1 in 5 people are insane. Statistics mean nothing these days.

 

[DogOfHavoc]

Prisons are necessary. They should not serve as rehabilitation or punishment. Rather, they serve to protect the innocent population from danger. The majority of time people who spend time in jail commit crimes after being released. Clearly, rehabilitation doesn't work. Yes, for petty crimes like theft and the like there is a possibility for reforming the criminal, but in dangerous criminals it is not worth risk. Murder, rape and child molestation are just some crimes which are inexcusable. Releasing people who commit these crimes back into the general public is simply asking for trouble. Anyone who commits one of these violent crimes deserves life in prison. If they regret what they did later and do reform, it is no longer our problem. They screwed up, we paid the price and now so are they.

I do not support the death penalty. However, I don't oppose it on moral grounds. My fear is that we could kill innocent men. If there was a way to
make sure someone is 100% guilty, capital punishment would be a viable option. As it currently stands, life in prison is our best option.

A final note. Preventive steps aren't feasible as a comprehensive solution. It is naive to believe that urban areas with poor school systems, druggy parents, single moms struggling to raise kids amidst crime and rampant violence are going to be uniformly reformed. Sure, close teacher and parent supervision is viable in affluent areas, but poor urban areas are so far degenerated that hope for reform in the ways you suggest is impossible. At our current juncture, increased police forces and prison are our best options for safeguarding the innocent.

 

[Seb!]

I don't see how death penalty could be more expensive. They strap you to a chair, and shock you. Done.

>there's statistics that proves that less people commit murders if there's no death penalty.

There are also statistics that say 1 in 5 people are insane. Statistics mean nothing these days.

Add the endless appeal system to a rising cost of euthanasia drugs and, yes, the death penalty is more expensive and less effective. Who could have foretold that this unnecessary and one-sided legal battle would have to be fought against the Christian "Pro-Life" camp.

 

[Pineapple]

Laws and Licenses that regulate who can be a parent. End of Story.

That would cut down on criminals, after all, unfit parents would break the law to have kids.

--------------------------

Anyway, as far as what to do with a criminal...

Well, I don't really know. Yes, putting them in jail is rather pointless, if anything it does more harm then good.

I have considered one time punishments agianst them. You steal? Bam! Their goes your nice TV. Or bam, no electricity for a month. Killed a man? Bullet, far cheaper than lethal injection. Self Defense? You can walk.

Naturally, if we did the above, things would go to hell.

There is no right answer, only many wrong ones.

 

[WolSHaman]

I do belive that we can all agree that if you commit a crime, you must be punished. The debate I would like to start is how we as a society punish said criminals.

In modern societies, it is expected that criminal elements are robbed of their freedom and locked away in a correctional institution to serve a judgement passed down on them by a rightful and just institution of law.

Considering the above, here's my point:
What good does it do to lock criminal elements away? Psychology studies clearly shows that in order to change a individual's behaviour, one most first change the individial's environment. I hardly think that moving an indivual from one criminal environment to another is changing said individual's environment. Also proven by science is, that isolation of a individual from the rest of a society reduces the isolated individual's empathy and compassion for individuals living in the unisolated society. We become their enemies, it happens subconsciously, so there isn't much we can do about it. Lastly let me point out that societies label those who have been in a correctional institution, we automatically look down upon them and constantly questions their integrity, thus creating a negative stereo-type of those that have been incarcerated. If those persons ever get send back to prison, the before mentioned stereo-type will reflect on the person being imprisonned, leaving him or her feeling worthless, both it'll also reflect on society, acknowledging the stereo-type as fact!

Considering the above I can only come to one conclusion: Prisons are contra-effective, they try to serve a good purpose but end up making the problem much much worse.

But if we don't lock criminal elements away, what alternatives do we then have?

I propose preventive solutions for example keeping a watchful eye on parents and the child's environment, acting before the child turn to a criminal life. It requires a great amount of resources such as special training of teachers and other personel dealing with children and a large child service sector, but in the end I do believe that I'll benefit the society. I think it'll be able to reduce criminal elements going in and out of correctional institutions by a considerable amount.

Please feel free to post your views on prisons, their effects on inmates and possible alternatives to prisons.

Prevention is very good, and I agree that we should focus far more on prevention then we do. That said, we still need prisons, as there will always be those who are born completely insane, from genetics and all that jazz, and if one of them commits a murder, they should be locked away as they did do a crime. We can't just say "oh hey keep murdering, have fun " that obviously wouldn't end well.

 

[thewrongvine]

Death Penalty doesn't really use the electric chair anymore. Not too much at least.

They inject a syringe into you when you're strapped to a chair. The problem however is that, if they even get 1% wrong of the mixture (the injection is made of 3 substances, maybe some other ones now) it makes the whole killing go wrong, and the person will have instant side effects and take a LOT of pain for the next second or minute that they live. (In America)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

I think that until we discover a better way than we have now, prison is necessary.

~Hai-Bye-Vine~

 

[Kershbob]

The prison system in Scandinavia is pretty good. I generally think criminals are given long and pointless sentences in most countries.

The death penalty is horrific and needs to be abolished everywhere.

I'm not saying I'm against futuristic mind reprogramming when some amoral scientist eventually invents it.

 

[Dr.Jack]

Sorry for the delay. The beauty about debates is that we can always pick them up and continue them. So if you don't mind I'll go straight to the point.

I too believe that there is a fundamental problem with prisons. First as you said they don't encourage a change. Prisons are built to scare potential criminals and lock felons to protect society. However while doing that it takes one of the most basic and important rights - freedom. Prison can ruin lives and change them. My ideology is that there is no bad people, that are people that made mistakes, people with extreme personality, or people that grew in a bad environment but in the end we are all just trying to make it. Because of that I believe that ruining (or ending) one's life even he did mistakes in the wrong approach. I believe in showing people a better path - a path that will help them correct their ways and contribute to society.

Right and wrong isn't an absolute idea. Every intelligent being sees the world in a different way and due to that sees right and wrong in a different way. If an alien was to come to earth and steal money to him it was just some numbers in the computer or paper. To us it would be stealing. If he would see a soldier shooting at another he will not consider it any better than a criminal shooting a cop. Its all in the beholder eyes. Because of that I believe it is very problematic to enforce society rules on everyone.

However we have to have some order. In the foundations of democracy stands the idea that the government protects its citizens rights and in return they give the government authorities. So what is the solution? On one hand there is the ideology that states that criminals' life still have an importance and as a tolerate society we should respect that. On the one hand we have the responsibility to protect the citizens and respect treaty between the government and the citizens.

That's a good question. An excellent question really that have yet to be answered. I don't believe stopping criminals before they do their crimes is possible. First it is very hard to identify future criminal. Second there are already means to stop future criminals that don't really help. The educational system is already repulsing felons and prisons are a huge threat. Thirdly even if it was easy to identify criminals and a better way to lead them to the right path by society's eyes the world would have never agreed to waste so much resources on that.

I believe our duty as a society is to try and find ways to lead criminals to the right path without ruining their lives. If you were pushed to criminal acts and by that had your life ruined I'm sure you would have felt the misery many people feel. Perhaps a physiological treatment can be effective? Perhaps we can extend the punishment's length but somehow reduce the limitations? I don't know. I think that if the governments would have realize that there imposing system is very problematic at its core they would have found other solution. However society is not interested in that. As long as it keeps criminals away from it its happy. Completely and comfortably numb. :banghead:

 

[thewrongvine]

OMG I WROTE A HUGE RESPONSE AND MY COMPUTER CRASHED SO IT DIDN'T SAVE I'M SO MAD! So this one's gonna be really short. Because I forgot what I wrote earlier.
_____________________________________________________________________

It's a difficult thing, "punishing" a criminal, because everyone's different. There's no perfect judgement because people are unique and respond to various punishments differently. So for the time being, I think prison works.
However, prison does work on occassions. Some people truly are good at heart even at their crime. They want to change, and prison gives them time to do so. Sometimes, you need to think away from distractions, including friends and family. And if they truly wish to change or rethink their lives in whatever way, then I believe good will come to them and they will get what they deserve (in a good way).

Like for example, in the movie Mad City (which is a pretty cool movie, I won't spoil anything at all lol), the man played by John Travolta only committed his crime out of stress from losing his job and for his family. But he's actually a kind-hearted man, caring, so stubbornly good inside, but he still is a criminal. So therefore, he should get a lighter punishment. Like I said before, the people that truly wish to change, would be able to respond well to whatever judgement they got.
Then again, sometimes even the good and innocent don't deserve what they get.
And on the other hand,

My ideology is that there is no bad people, that are people that made mistakes, people with extreme personality, or people that grew in a bad environment but in the end we are all just trying to make it.

That may be true, but how about people like for example, the Zodiac killer, or Hannibal (lol crazy example but it's a point). There are some people out there that was just sadistic killers or criminals. I believe no one's completely beyond changing, but for us, and right now, I doubt it. So prison doesn't exist to be a fair, good punishment - just one for the time being.

Kinda off-topic here, but in response to this:

I don't believe stopping criminals before they do their crimes is possible.

MINORITY REPORT (2002)

Um... I don't really debate, so I'm just handing out some points.

EDIT: Psychological or Physiological Treatment or whatever... ugh, I don't like that. It's just forcing people to change in ridiculous ways in where the doctor is always correct. No matter what you say, it's "some sort of problem". ^_^ And that Physiologic stuff, that's also forcing change. I think.

~Hai-Bye-Vine~

 

[Dr.Jack]

That may be true, but how about people like for example, the Zodiac killer, or Hannibal (lol crazy example but it's a point).

Mentally disabled people should go mental institution to get psychiatry treatment.

EDIT: Psychological or Physiological Treatment or whatever... ugh, I don't like that. It's just forcing people to change in ridiculous ways in where the doctor is always correct. No matter what you say, it's "some sort of problem". ^_^ And that Physiologic stuff, that's also forcing change. I think.

One of Psychological's most important ideologies is that change should and can only come from within. It simply helps is spotting the problem and understanding what causing it and by that help the patient to overcome it.

 

[ElderKingpin]

like dr jack said (i think it was him) the way prisons rehabilitate people is from fear. And that can only last so long. It works on kids when their parents threaten to punish them, but they eventually learn that its bad for them. Criminals are different, they already crossed the line. Maybe the only way for them to rehabilitate is to instill fear into them. That has worked before, capital punishment (take a life, give your life), reduced the crime rate drastically. but now that we have "morals" so to speak, we dont find capital punishment good anymore, we just put them into a jail for the rest of their lives. Fear is the most effective. but how it is applied is another question. There is good in everyone. but can fear bring that out? or push it deeper.

 

[Genkora]

If we want to rehabilitate criminals, then no, prison is completely ineffective. If we want to keep criminals out of society, then it is useless to give anyone anything less than a life sentence seeing as they will continue to commit crimes when they get out. So it is mostly useless in both respects. We either have to change the way we rehabilitate (which is nearly impossible to do with someone who has reached maturity), or kill on the spot, no strings attached (not that I support this method or anything).

Spoiler