Prison reform

Whats the purpose of sentencing? Why is does one crime warrant more time locked up while snother crime warrants less?

My proposal for discussion is that all violent crimes get the following sentence- go to prison until they've been reformed. Whether it takes 6 months or 50 years or never. They would be evaluated for probabationary release every 3 months for their first 2 years, and then every year thereafter by behavioral psychologists, taking into account their record, progress, education and behavior behind bars. They would be evaluated in a circuit, so as to prevent bias by getting the same evaluators over and over. Once they were proclaimed reformed or rehabilitated or corrected or w/e we want to call it, they go to probabtion to transfer back into the world. Another evaluation either puts them back in prison or makes them a fully re-integrated member of society with all rights restored.

 

Of course during this entire theretical process they're left to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps'.

 

Are you suggesting that or presuming that?

Feel free to add suggestions or alterations to my proposal...

 

There are lots of mental disorders out there that makes people suffering from them perfect liars. You will not know about it unless you are specifically looking for it.
So, my point is - sociopaths will be able to kill many people in your system because they will always be released 6 months after being sentenced.

 

What constitutes “being reformed” and how does one actually determine with a high degree of certainty that the person is in fact “reformed”? Seems like a lot of room for error with this plan.

 

The purpose of the criminal sanction is to offer a presumably civilized way to deal with transgressions against the rights of others. It is presumably a civil framework for punishment of citizens.

When posturing politicians presume to know all the answers in life, they pass legislation called minimum mandatory sentences, thereby usurping power from the judiciary branch.

In a civilized society, a judge will hear the particulars of any given case and render a just sentence. In our society, the clowns in Washington have declared that THEY have more wisdom than the judges. They have declared to be the dispensers of justice, and anybody paying attention to the behavior of politicians knows that is pure bullshit.

Our prisons are full because of the idiotic drug policy of prohibition that we've had for more than a century.

 

I don't think the panel of psychologists is going to easily release murderers, especially repeat murderers. 'This guy keeps killing, but he's really nice to talk to...' isn't gonna fly.

 

Sure, but is there more room for error than there is now?

 

Agreed. I specified violent crime in OP because offensively violent people should be locked up. Drug use shouldn't be a crime.

 

Generally threefold; Deterrent, to seeking to discourage the prisoner themselves and other people from (re)offending, Rehabilitation, having prisoners as a "captive audience" for rehabilitation measures, Public Protection, keeping dangerous criminals out of the community.

That doesn't happen by magic though. You're only ever going to reform convicted criminals if you invest in rehabilitation. It'd be even better if there was investment in work to prevent petty criminals and young people in general even getting as far as imprisonable offences. The main problem is that there is no profit and no votes in any of that, which is why all the focus is on "lock 'em up" and nothing else.

The only difference between your system and what is meant to happen already is the open-ended aspect, which means without any other changes, all you'll do is massively ramp up the prison population and all the problems that causes.

 

The first priority should be to protect the public, second punishment, and third rehabilitation. I don't believe the third is even possible without the second. Criminal actions must have direct set consequences for the sake of equal justice and as a deterrent.

While I agree drug use should not be criminal, possession over a certain amount should. Addicts should be treated, but dealers should be locked away. Profiting from and exploiting someone's addiction is just wrong. I've seen some very disturbing things done by, and to, addicts looking to score another hit.

 

I guess my wording wasn't clear... by 'discussion' I had hoped to illicit suggestions as to how such a system could work.

Agreed that there needs to be more focus on rehabilitation and less on punishment. Thats the entire purpose if this proposal.

...accepting as well that some can not be rehabilitated, and should be kept away from the rest of society.

 

What about nicotine and alcohol? Are tobacco farmers and distilleries 'criminals'?

Also I don't think punishment should even be part of the system. Its punishment enough to be caged up during rehabilitation. The longer rehabilitation takes, the longer punishment continues whether its a priority or not.

 

Kill more people or run for office on the democrat ticket.

 

Tabacco and alcohol of course not. But some things need to be regulated to protect individuals and society. I know some disagree and I understand the reasoning, but this is just one of those lesser of two evils
scenarios.

It seems in your scenario the rehabilitation kind of is the punishment. Either way, certain crimes need to carry with them certain punishments. Some things you should not be able to rehabilitate yourself out of. Maybe you are allowing for that I don't know.

 

I think the panel of psychologists, having reviewed the prisoners history, behavior, past evals, etc, will be able to tell with an acceptable margin of error whether they're reasonably ready to return to society or not. Some would (and should) never pass the eval. No system is perfect, of course, but I think this system will be far less innaccurate than just assigning a length of time to serve for each crime.

Serial killers, for example, will have that history on file for the panel. I cant imagine any panel of psychologists would ever decide that a serial killer was safe to return to free society.

 

Without a rock solid definition of reformed that can be reliably measured, I can't support "reform" in prison. Prison needs to be a deterrent. Because it's cost prohibitive under the current system, I recommend the following changes.

1. There is no early release for good behavior or any other reason. Each week only counts towards their sentence if they completed 6 days of work at 8 hours/day. The 7th day is for rest. Any violence or extreme misbehavior will result in loss of credit for time towards their sentence, to be determined by established guidelines. Lifers can brag about not working if they dare or they can work to pass the time.

2. Prisons will become as self sufficient as possible. They will wash their own clothes, grow their own food, raise their own livestock, make furniture for government buildings, and the prison can sell any extra available labor to the highest bidder for any manufacturing that can be safely and securely done within the prison.

3. Educated prisoners can teach other prisoners to earn their GED as their daily job. No college classes.(especially law classes - to avoid frivolous lawsuits) Inmates with experience in agriculture or any prison job can teach newer inmates.

4. Cable TV, internet access, weight lifting equipment, and sports are no longer provided. They can work on the job for exercise.

5. After their daily work, inmates can exercise in their cell, read books, write letters, attend GED classes, or learn musical instruments. Selected music and selected books can be aired on speaker, which can be turned down in their cell by the inmate. The staff can rotate music formats if they like. Church services and/or movies can be attended on their day off if possible.

This curriculum is supposed to suck enough to be a deterrent, but also teach them basic job skills and the value of discipline and hard work.

 

You really dont know when someone is rehabilitated. Good behavior and keeping a job in prison can bring its rewards within prison and offers some the opportunity for an early release...but that doesnt mean someone isn't going to get back with the gangsters or robbing or killing. Really the sentence should start with justice...the time for the crime. If someone is in for life without parole...that means that person committed a heinous crime. It would be an injustice for the victims family and society to let them out because they "seemed" rehabilitated.

 

It doesnt really seem to be deterring a lot...

 

As has been pointed out by others, for such a proposed system to work I think you would have to modify the way in which prisons operate so that they are in fact correctional facilities in practice as in name - designed primarily to reintegrate bad actors into society. As for your proposed panel and continuous evaluations for probation, it is the part of your proposal that is the most ripe for abuse. The psychologists you mention would need to be unelected and unassigned by any partisan body/official to ensure the parole mechanism you mention cannot be abused by one party seeking to keep otherwise eligible voters from doing so.

Other than that, I agree with the central tenant of your idea - that the prison system should be designed to reform.

I do not agree with other posters that a core feature of prison should be a deterrent for crime. The problem I find with this line of thinking stems directly from the current end goal most justice systems: retribution. For example, take someone who committed war crimes severing in the German army during WWII, who has since left this life behind, who poses no real danger to anyone in present day, and who is finally found out 70+ years later and tried. That does nothing to protect the public. It does not deter future crimes as it is so mired in the past. It does not reform a 90 year old who is likely a few years from the grave. That is just retribution.

The notion that you can use minimum penalties is similarly blind to circumstance. Having someone who commits a crime and who has reformed does not serve the public by remaining incarcerated. The incarcerated do not contribute to the public. They are a drain on resources. Those who have been been reformed should be allowed to reintegrate so that they can begin to contribute.

Finally, on the notion that prisoners should work while in prison. While I am sympathetic to the idea of job training as part of rehabilitation, it is a risky proposition. It is especially so with regard to the notion of an indefinite length detention. This effectively turns the prisoners into slave laborers - the spoils of which go to whoever has them under their employ. It creates a terrible incentive structure to incarcerate as many as possible and to keep them locked up as long as possible to exploit free or cheep labor. I could potentially agree to such a proposition if the prisoners were paid for their labor, but this likewise runs into the extremely likely scenario that despite being paid, the labor is compulsory. I can easily see it forming a modern indentured servant relationship.

 

If we want to create a more just prison system, it begins with creating a just legal system, but in order to do that, we must first create a just society.

Considering the current state of affairs in this country, we have a long long way to go.

 

The most commonly understood meaning of justice is fairness. So when we say we're seeking justice, we're either talking about seeking fairness (which is impossible), or we're seeking something else. Seems to me that we're looking for the law to bring order. Locking people up for a prescribed time and then letting them go pretending that sacrificing some of their life somehow 'makes up' for what they took from others doesnt really seem to working (feign surprise...).

Society will never be 'fair' until we all become the same exact person with the same exact values and priorities and goals (just shoot me now).

What we really want is just for people to not attack and steal from eachother. Since punishment isn't preventing these from happening regularly, its time for a different approach.

 

The psychologists would be taken from a pool of any and all qualified (certified) applicants who want to get paid to evaluate prisoners. The circuit I mentioned where a prisoner couldn't keep getting evaluated by the same people over and over would prevent any personal vendettas from keeping someone locked up. If the evaluators were had some built in irregularity in their groups, so as to prevent any single one from knowing whom they would be evaluating or whom their co-evaluators would be, it would make any single entity having a meaningful negative impact on the system impossible.

To put simply, I don't think it would take alot to prevent the evaluators from being manipulated, so long as its recognized that they indeed could be if measures arent taken.

I generally agree with all that you said

 

Why do you think fairness is not possible?

Fairness, as I have come to understand it over my lifetime, is more about treating people with respect. It is about thinking of how one's actions relate to other people and the reciprocal reaction one receives. It isn't fair to lock someone up for drug possession and depending on the form of that drug, it could automatically increase your sentence, even though it is the same chemical composition. Just as it is not fair that once a convict has served his/her time that they shouldn't have their civilian rights restored (such as voting).

I agree with you that under the guise of "punishment" it has not served us well, but a just society would look at the record of crimes and ask, why are people committing these crimes? How has society failed them where they think they need to break the law, or someone else's rights, in order to survive?

The only way we can achieve a more just society is to ask the right questions, but as a society we seem oblivious to this fact and would rather invent imaginary scenarios or exagerate existing ones.

 

Why not make punishment so severe that no one wants to commit a crime. Countries like Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates all subscribe to harsh punishments including the death penalty. All have very low crime rates. In the Asian countries it seems deeply entrenched in the culture where one fears disgracing their families even more than prison. When I was in Japan you could be out very late alone and walk the streets without any problems. My friends there said crime is very low and none of them knew anyone that was a criminal. They said whatever crime there is not of the petty variety and doesn't directly effect the average person. Everybody there works and poverty is also low. In spite of this very gentle, civil society Japan has strict laws and a death penalty. Lovely country, people, food, climate but very crowded, I could never live there.