Gyroscopic Investing

According to that chart, in 1980 people convicted of murder only got around a five years sentence (?). 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have a problem with criminals going to jail and serving long sentences.

The article is a bit simplistic...for example, they ignore the effect of drug laws.  Those are responsible for a big chunk of the prison population, but you can argue that jail isn't appropriate for small time drug dealers & drug users.

TennPaGa wrote: Why the US prison population exploded
-- Dara Lind, Vox

* It WASN'T because more people committed crimes

It's curious to me that they don't explore the seemingly-obvious corollary: that more people didn't commit crimes because more of the criminals (the people who commit crimes, after all) were already in prison. The graph they show seems to show a correlation that endorses that theory. A few years after the prison population starts rising, crime rates of all sorts fall. Harsh sentences may not deter crime, but they can segregate the criminals from the rest of the population, temporarily eliminating their ability to cause crime among non-criminals.

And I'm with WiseOne. I do want long sentences for serious crimes, like murder. To me there should be a vast gulf in the severity of minor crimes vs major crimes. For someone who smokes pot, the sentence should be zero days--it shouldn't even be a crime. For someone who kills an innocent human being in anger, the sentence should default to the remainder of the offender's life. Murder can't be reversed or recompensed the way property crimes like theft can.

I also don't get the hating on three-strikes laws. If someone has been convicted of three felonies on separate occasions, what logic is there in continuing to let that person live in civil society? I can certainly understand the argument that there are lots of felonies that should be misdemeanors or even not even crimes in the first place, but my impression is that most people ensnared by these laws are committing crimes like robbery, assault, and murder, not writing bad checks three times.

Hypothetical: what if the USA has mass incarceration because the USA has mass criminality? While I certainly think all the drug crimes should not be crimes, there remains the uncomfortable possibility that even if that were done, extremely large number of people would continue to get arrested and convicted for serious crimes with real victims.

I'm with WiseOne with PS, and I will add:
It's sad if people are born into an environment that is conducive to petty crime and subsequent imprisonment.  I'm all for programs that help people who've made mistakes get back on their feet.

However, as far as I'm concerned jail is not for punishment. It's for keeping criminals away from me.

AdamA wrote: According to that chart, in 1980 people convicted of murder only got around a five years sentence (?).

I looked up the records of a guy who was harrassing a female friend and he had done time for murder. Six years, I recall.

But isn't insider trading a worse crime than murder?

Reub wrote: But isn't insider trading a worse crime than murder?

Only if you're not white.

Reub wrote: But isn't insider trading a worse crime than murder?

I do think it's despicable when privileged and financially comfortable individuals engage in crime just because they can. Hard to sympathize with them the way you can Oliver Twist.

dualstow wrote: However, as far as I'm concerned jail is not for punishment. It's for keeping criminals away from me.

AdamA wrote: According to that chart, in 1980 people convicted of murder only got around a five years sentence (?).

I looked up the records of a guy who was harrassing a female friend and he had done time for murder. Six years, I recall.

If there's a travesty anywhere in this data, it's that.  Murder someone and get a prison sentence shorter than the minimum for possessing a bit too much cocaine in the wrong form?  Please.

I've lived in a few places that were scary because of the prevalence of violent crime, and I'm not anxious to repeat the experience in order to make somebody feel good about reducing the prison population.  There are ways to do that (maybe), but it's not by shortening sentences.  Said person will just commit another crime and go in for round 2.  then round 3.  etc.  The recidivism rates are well known & published.  The writer of this article should go read about them.

WiseOne wrote: I've lived in a few places that were scary because of the prevalence of violent crime, and I'm not anxious to repeat the experience in order to make somebody feel good about reducing the prison population.  There are ways to do that (maybe), but it's not by shortening sentences.  Said person will just commit another crime and go in for round 2.  then round 3.  etc.  The recidivism rates are well known & published.  The writer of this article should go read about them.

If we ever get tired of the costs of keeping these shitheels out of society, there's always the solutions presented in Soylet Green, Logan's Run or Demolition Man.  Serious.  When the equivalent of a Robocop comes out, it'll be very intereseting to see what happens and if we need to go in those ultimate directions or not.  There's a sweet sense of sadistic justice I want to be feeling.

Simonjester wrote: i have always been a fan of the "free range prison", ...get sentenced to life... we will give you a homestead cart filled with a two year supply of food, tools, building supply, livestock, seed, medicine and "how to books", and drop you off inside a large walled off section of land. and YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.. no contact with the outside world no guards inside, the walls are guarded and protected with mine fields and sharp shooters, step over the wall and your life sentence becomes a death sentence..

and best of all.... the punishment fits the crime.... you broke the fundamental rules of society to get thrown in there, and the punishment is... in order to survive you must build a society of your own and do so with a group of your peers...
and i don't have to care what kind of society they build for themselves or whether they survive or not ..it is there problem..

as an added bonus the outside world can be kept in the dark about what they do to each other in there, it may be wonderful (if a bit rough) agrarian living, it may be thunder-dome cannibal hell, and not knowing and fear of the unknown is a very strong emotion/reaction and might prove to be a strong deterrent, criminals aren't afraid of regular prison they think of it as home. being thrown into the total unknown might scare a lot of people into having second thoughts about committing serious crimes..

That sounds expensive.  Not to mention they will probably die.  What if they were innocent?

Simonjester wrote:

Lowe wrote: That sounds expensive. Not to mention they will probably die. What if they were innocent?

well the survival cart and building the wall are one time expenses and the guards are only on the outside so fewer needed.. i suspect it costs less.. they may or may not die its up to them not me... the problem with innocent prisoners is no different that the one we have with the death penalty and the solutions to eliminate or reduce errors are the same.. but in this case we haven't committed murder..

Yes, it is the same problem as with the death penalty.  How about instead we ding their credit until they can't even buy groceries or conduct business like a normal person, reducing them to a beggar.  Then at least they are less likely to starve, since there will be soup kitchens, etc.

That would be cheap.  Cheaper than convention prisons, or the gigantic prison you described, with sharp-shooting guards posted all over the borders, and a bunch of land now rendered unusable for ordinary people.

Simonjester wrote: i somehow doubt bad credit is going to slow murderers and the worst of the worst from committing crime, since many of them are committing those acts in the commission of robbery or the heat of passion, being hungry and poor would make an increase in crime more likely not less... not to mention the idea that they should be running around loose being a bit odd...

the cost of land is a initial expense but we use up land for prisons now anyway, and the shooting monitoring could be technology assisted and run by fairly few people (sharp shooters can reach out a long way) since nothing like this actually exists (outside my head ) there are undoubtedly a bunch of details and costs that would need to be dealt with.. i still cant help but like the "the punishment fits the crime aspect of this idea.... you broke the fundamental rules of society to get thrown in there, and the punishment is... in order to survive you must build a society of your own and do so with a group of your peers... "

Subjecting an innocent convict to an environment where they're subjected to the risk of rape, starvation, murder, dehydration, etc, and simply having someone spend their life in a contained environment where they have food provided and a way to stay physically/mentally balanced & healthy (in spite of the loss of their freedom) are two MASSIVELY different outcomes.  And I'd venture to say that the death penalty is even less cruel.

So the assertion that this is a horse a piece is ludicrous.

And you HAVE committed murder.  You've forcibly put someone in an environment where they are almost sure to die (in many instances).  If I were to go find the most vicious dogs in my county, put them all in my basement together, and then take an innocent dog and push him into said basement with a steak in his mouth, I've essentially killed the dog.  You've arranged circumstances so his death/suffering is almost a certainty.

I really love listening to "small-government" solutions to problems. 

Simonjester wrote: death to the innocent is less cruel? maybe... but condemning the innocent is a problem regardless of the punishment or the means of removal from society, and has to solved/worked on no matter what punishment or means of removal you choose for the guilty..

Simonjester wrote: i have always been a fan of the "free range prison", ...get sentenced to life... we will give you a homestead cart filled with a two year supply of food, tools, building supply, livestock, seed, medicine and "how to books", and drop you off inside a large walled off section of land. and YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.. no contact with the outside world no guards inside, the walls are guarded and protected with mine fields and sharp shooters, step over the wall and your life sentence becomes a death sentence..

To add something to what others have been saying, a lot of brutal, ruthless men would actually welcome this kind of situation. The most hardened criminals WANT a no-rules, strong-control-the-weak, law-of-the-jungle type of environment. That's where they thrive. It could even act as an incentive to commit a crime that could get them sent there! This would also have to be gender-segregated, because otherwise, the women would very rapidly become sex slaves to the men due to the vastly smaller number of female criminals vs male criminals and the gender dynamics present with a large group of physically strong and ruthless men and a small group of physically weaker women.

Lowe wrote: Yes, it is the same problem as with the death penalty.  How about instead we ding their credit until they can't even buy groceries or conduct business like a normal person, reducing them to a beggar.  Then at least they are less likely to starve, since there will be soup kitchens, etc.

That would be cheap.  Cheaper than convention prisons, or the gigantic prison you described, with sharp-shooting guards posted all over the borders, and a bunch of land now rendered unusable for ordinary people.

This is a real feasible "private society" solution, and one that I've devoted a lot of thought to. But I keep coming back to the fact that by making criminals social outcasts who cannot participate in ordinary peaceful market transactions, they are given even more incentive to commit crime and are driven even deeper into the crime culture.

The uncomfortable fact of crime is that most (not all, but most) criminals are 100% recidivists who commit crime because they live amidst a culture of criminality. Punishment doesn't work because it simply mirrors the violence they experience routinely. I feel like the only two sane options are segregation and rehabilitation. And if rehabilitation doesn't work, segregation is the only feasible option that protects the rest of society.

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: To add something to what others have been saying, a lot of brutal, ruthless men would actually welcome this kind of situation. The most hardened criminals WANT a no-rules, strong-control-the-weak, law-of-the-jungle type of environment. That's where they thrive. It could even act as an incentive to commit a crime that could get them sent there! This would also have to be gender-segregated, because otherwise, the women would very rapidly become sex slaves to the men due to the vastly smaller number of female criminals vs male criminals and the gender dynamics present with a large group of physically strong and ruthless men and a small group of physically weaker women.

they are welcome to volunteer no need to commit a second crime to get in
the problem of women is an interesting one, on one hand in normal society women act as a stabilizing influence, and part of me wonders if they might do the same in my imaginary free range prison, they would be a valuable commodity and defending and keeping them healthy and happy might be an incentive to have rules and codes of conduct, or it could work out as you say and be a short brutal stint as a sex slave and then death..

truth is i doubt this idea would ever have any real or strong support.. even if banishment has been around since early tribal life it creates some strange questions and uncertainty about how it would work out in a fully occupied world where those deserving of it would be all in one place.

Historically, when women have been very valuable, they have always become the property of powerful men who fight each other over them. I see no reason the same wouldn't happen in PrisonLand, especially with all the men selected for poor impulse control and violent behavior.

Simonjester wrote: true enough..., it is real difficult to imagine how the prisoners would treat each other, i suspect that the difficulty of agrarian survival which requires lots of hard work and cooperation would eventually create a tribal (gang) society where rules would emerge and violence was discouraged with the threat of violence and death.
how they would treat women (even if they were property) would likely involve protecting them from harm from others, even if the one protecting them is brutal or rough on the women themselves..

Man, Simon, I usually agree with everything you say, but on this one you're flat out wrong.  Haven't all those dystopian novels or movies taught you anything?  Being civilized is in not treating the uncivilized as uncivilized.  It's completely bad karma to do anything else.

Thomas Hobbes wrote:In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Simonjester wrote: this is less of an "i think this is right, or it would work" idea than it is an interesting speculation on punishment fitting the crime, and curiosity about how the uncivilized would live if there survival depended on creation there own civilization. they might very well not survive, but i suspect they would do far better than any dystopian book or movie would give credit for. whether it is moral or bad karma to separate the criminal from society (we already do) and whether the method of separation, also has a moral karmic aspect... locked down controlled and denied choice in most aspects of their life, with food and shelter provided VS separated but free and uncontrolled within that separation but responsible for their own safety food and shelter.

Simonjester wrote: i have always been a fan of the "free range prison", ...get sentenced to life... we will give you a homestead cart filled with a two year supply of food, tools, building supply, livestock, seed, medicine and "how to books", and drop you off inside a large walled off section of land. and YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN.. no contact with the outside world no guards inside, the walls are guarded and protected with mine fields and sharp shooters, step over the wall and your life sentence becomes a death sentence.. 

and best of all.... the punishment fits the crime.... you broke the fundamental rules of society to get thrown in there, and the punishment is... in order to survive you must build a society of your own and do so with a group of your peers...
and i don't have to care what kind of society they build for themselves or whether they survive or not ..it is there problem..

as an added bonus the outside world can be kept in the dark about what they do to each other in there, it may be wonderful  (if a bit rough) agrarian living, it may be thunder-dome cannibal hell, and not knowing and fear of the unknown is a very strong emotion/reaction and might prove to be a strong deterrent, criminals aren't afraid of regular prison they think of it as home. being thrown into the total unknown might scare a lot of people into having second thoughts about committing serious crimes..

Robert Heinlein beat you to it: http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/work ... entry.html

Oh, and to answer the original question: it is entirely due to the "war on some drugs".