The only problem with this is that it works in reverse. We could put people who haven’t commited a crime in jail on the grounds that they are likely to or it helps society when their in jail.
Before things go that far, shouldn’t a society set up voluntary programs for treatment? Exactly how does one draw the line between punishment and treatment? Our society has blurred the two notions. (Plea bargaining involving attendance of a driving course.)
Exactly how does one draw the line between punishment and treatment? Our society has blurred the two notions.
Very true. As I noted in my other comment, jails necessarily suck to be in, above and beyond the loss of freedom of movement.
We just don’t have a common, accepted protocol to handle people who are “dangerous to others, though they haven’t (yet) done anything wrong, and maybe did good by turning themselves in”. Such people would deserve to be detained, but not in a way intended to be unpleasant.
The closest examples I can think of for this kind of treatment (other than the international border system I described in the other comment) are halfway houses, quarantining, jury sequestration, and insane asylums (in those cases where the inmate has just gone nuts but not committed violent crimes yet). There needs to be a more standard protocol for these intermediate cases, which would look similar to minimum security prisons, but not require you to have committed a crime, and be focused on making you less dangerous so you can be released.
Great point. in real life one should usually look for the best available option when considering a potentially costly change rather than just choosing one hard contrarian choice on a multiple choice test. The fact that we have conflicting intuitions on a point is probably evidence that better ‘third way’ options exist.
Before things go that far, shouldn’t a society set up voluntary programs for treatment?
Who would volunteer to go to jail? Seriously, if the cops came to your door and told you that because your statistics suggested you were likely to commit a crime and you had to go to a “rehabilitation program”, would you want to go, or resist (if possible)?
Exactly how does one draw the line between punishment and treatment?
From this, hypothetical, point of view, there is no difference. There is no real punishment, but you can hardly call sending someone to jail or worse, execution, treatment.
“consequentialists don’t believe in punishment for its own sake, they do believe in punishment for the sake of, well, consequences.”
Jails don’t HAVE to be places of cruel and unusual punishment, as they are currently in the US. The prisons in Norway, for instance, are humane—they almost look like real homes. The purpose of a jail is served (ensuring people can’t harm those in society) while diminishing side effects as much as possible and encouraging rehabilitation.
Example: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison
Thats the problem, where do you draw the line between rehabilitation and punishment? Getting criminals out of society is one benefit of prisons, but so is creating deterent to commit crimes. If I was a poor person and prison was this nice awesome place full of luxuries, I might actually want to go to prison. Obviously thats an extreme example, but how much of a cost getting caught is certainly plays a role when you ponder commiting a crime.
In ancient societies, they had barbaric punishments for criminals. The crime rate was high and they were rarely caught. And when resources are limited, providing someone free food and shelter is to costly and starving people might actually try to get in. Not to mention they didn’t have any ways of rehabilitating people.
Personally I am in favor of more rehabilitation. There are alot of repeat offenders in jail, and most criminals are irrational and afffected by bias anyways, so trying treating them like rational agents doesn’t work.
In the case where someone wishes to commit a crime so they can spend time in jail, they’ll probably perform something petty, which isn’t TOO bad especially if they can confess and the goods be returned (or an equivalent). If social planning can lower the poverty rate and provide ample social nets and re-education for people in a bad spot in their lives in the first place, this thing is also less likely to be a problem (conversely, if more people become poor, prisons will be pressured to become worse to keep them below the perceived bottom line). Finally, prison can be made to be nice, but it isolates you from friends, family and all places outside the prison, and imposes routine on you, so if you desire control over your life you’ll be discouraged from going there.
Before things go that far, shouldn’t a society set up voluntary programs for treatment? Exactly how does one draw the line between punishment and treatment? Our society has blurred the two notions. (Plea bargaining involving attendance of a driving course.)
Very true. As I noted in my other comment, jails necessarily suck to be in, above and beyond the loss of freedom of movement.
We just don’t have a common, accepted protocol to handle people who are “dangerous to others, though they haven’t (yet) done anything wrong, and maybe did good by turning themselves in”. Such people would deserve to be detained, but not in a way intended to be unpleasant.
The closest examples I can think of for this kind of treatment (other than the international border system I described in the other comment) are halfway houses, quarantining, jury sequestration, and insane asylums (in those cases where the inmate has just gone nuts but not committed violent crimes yet). There needs to be a more standard protocol for these intermediate cases, which would look similar to minimum security prisons, but not require you to have committed a crime, and be focused on making you less dangerous so you can be released.
Great point. in real life one should usually look for the best available option when considering a potentially costly change rather than just choosing one hard contrarian choice on a multiple choice test. The fact that we have conflicting intuitions on a point is probably evidence that better ‘third way’ options exist.
Who would volunteer to go to jail? Seriously, if the cops came to your door and told you that because your statistics suggested you were likely to commit a crime and you had to go to a “rehabilitation program”, would you want to go, or resist (if possible)?
From this, hypothetical, point of view, there is no difference. There is no real punishment, but you can hardly call sending someone to jail or worse, execution, treatment.
Jails don’t HAVE to be places of cruel and unusual punishment, as they are currently in the US. The prisons in Norway, for instance, are humane—they almost look like real homes. The purpose of a jail is served (ensuring people can’t harm those in society) while diminishing side effects as much as possible and encouraging rehabilitation. Example: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison
Thats the problem, where do you draw the line between rehabilitation and punishment? Getting criminals out of society is one benefit of prisons, but so is creating deterent to commit crimes. If I was a poor person and prison was this nice awesome place full of luxuries, I might actually want to go to prison. Obviously thats an extreme example, but how much of a cost getting caught is certainly plays a role when you ponder commiting a crime.
In ancient societies, they had barbaric punishments for criminals. The crime rate was high and they were rarely caught. And when resources are limited, providing someone free food and shelter is to costly and starving people might actually try to get in. Not to mention they didn’t have any ways of rehabilitating people.
Personally I am in favor of more rehabilitation. There are alot of repeat offenders in jail, and most criminals are irrational and afffected by bias anyways, so trying treating them like rational agents doesn’t work.
In the case where someone wishes to commit a crime so they can spend time in jail, they’ll probably perform something petty, which isn’t TOO bad especially if they can confess and the goods be returned (or an equivalent). If social planning can lower the poverty rate and provide ample social nets and re-education for people in a bad spot in their lives in the first place, this thing is also less likely to be a problem (conversely, if more people become poor, prisons will be pressured to become worse to keep them below the perceived bottom line). Finally, prison can be made to be nice, but it isolates you from friends, family and all places outside the prison, and imposes routine on you, so if you desire control over your life you’ll be discouraged from going there.