Here’s one more option: e) People don’t think enough about the level of brutality in prisons, and when they do think and talk about it they find it easier to applaud brutality; because anyone who spoke against it “would associate themselves with criminals, with weakness, with distasteful things that people would rather not think about”, while speaking in its favor make you look tough on crime.
Given political discussions I’ve partaken in other forums, I know full well that whenever I condemned prison rape and suggested ways in which it might be reduced/prevented, the typical response was something to the effect of “Why do you love criminals so much?”
Given political discussions I’ve partaken in other forums, I know full well that whenever I condemned prison rape and suggested ways in which it might be reduced/prevented,
For example: Punish rapes among inmates in the same manner that other rapes of citizens by other citizens. Punish rapes of inmates by wardens in the same way with the additional loading that should be applied to all abuses of authority, particularly state sanctioned authority. But to do that we would need to replace Uncle Sam with Uncle Ben.
That would be by sending them to prison, which is not much of a punishment to someone who’s already in prison.
Yes it is. Not all sentences are life sentences. Then there are the obvious differences in types of imprisonment—including level of security and whether they have access to other prisoners or are confined to solitary.
Not all, but entirely too many. If someone is already going to be in a big concrete box for the next ten years no matter what they do, and doesn’t expect to survive more than five years in that environment, what more can you do to them?
Assume they’re already in the worst box that various legislation (mostly related to human rights) permits you to construct, or the closest cost-effective approximation thereof.
At that point, if they are not already, they should be put into solitary. Some would consider it reward, but if they prey on others, then they should be put somewhere that they can’t—that’s (ostensibly) why they’re there in the first place, at least in part.
The stated function of a prison is to imprison (i.e. detain). If the function of the prison was to get people physically hurt, then the state would have official torturers to brutalize people to such exact specifications as their convictions by the courts (e.g. official sentences would state things like “ten years in prison, plus three beatings and one anal rape per month”, and the state would hire official rapists for the purpose).
If brutality was supposed to be part of a prison’s specification, then we would have the responsibility of quantifying how much brutality is deserved for each crime. (the question you asked “How brutal should they be?” doesn’t only work for people criticizing their current brutality, but also for the people who support it, you see)
But the delegation of this task randomly to convicts speaks of the same hypocrisy that Quirrel mocks in the chapters in question.
The stated function of a prison is to imprison (i.e. detain).
There are several functions commonly ascribed to prisons, including:
Detention: to prevent people with criminal tendencies from having the opportunity to commit crimes against the general public, by physically separating them from the public.
Deterrence: to deprive criminals of the pleasures of normal society, in order to discourage other people from becoming criminals. If you would like to live with your partner, children, and friends in relative comfort instead of with a cellmate in relative discomfort, you have a motivation for staying out of prison.
Rehabilitation: to cure criminals of tendencies that may lead them to commit crimes; for instance, lack of cultural or moral education, or lack of non-criminal job skills. This is given as a reason for prisons to offer classes, job training, etc.
Penitence: to put criminals in an isolating environment where they will reflect on their crimes and regret them — or a panoptic environment in which they will internalize the conduct standards of the authorities.
(I’m not disagreeing with you on the badness of prison brutality; just on the “stated function” claim.)
Penitentiaries were name for the theory that prisoners should be penitent. More generally, rehabilitation is often a purpose of imprisonment.
It’s a factor for every US federal judge to consider when deciding what sentence to impose. In fairness, 3553(a) authorizes a judge to consider just about anything—it’s totally agnostic as to the appropriate theory of punishment.
When it comes down to it, the purpose of prisons is to reduce crime. The two main methods by which they accomplish this are being sufficiently nasty to deter would be criminals, and keeping the people who fail to be deterred confined so they can’t victimize law-abiding citizens.
Rehabilitation mostly exists so that (some of the) people doing the locking up can signal their compassion by supporting it.
Rapes, murders, and beatings in prison are also supposed to be crimes, no?
The two main methods by which they accomplish this are being sufficiently nasty to deter would be criminals,
At this point you’re surely using the same argument that would be used to justify Dementors in Azkaban—it makes Azkaban nastier: hence it serves as deterrent.
At this point you’re surely using the same argument that would be used to justify Dementors in Azkaban—it makes Azkaban nastier: hence it serves as deterrent.
If your argument is simply “brutality acts as a deterrent,” it’s almost certainly true. If your argument is, “Therefore the current level of prison brutality is optimal,” or, “we should be happy with prison brutality,” the only counterargument needed is that nobody’s provided any evidence at all for those positions.
But if either of those is the assertion, here are some counterarguments:
1) There is a countereffect: longer (and therefore more brutal) prison sentences increase rates of recidivism.
2) Flogging and caning are brutal deterrents. Many (most?) people will take a punishment of flogging over a punishment of a long prison sentence when given the choice. Ergo at least for many, prisons are more brutal than literal torture.
3) From a cursory glance at stats, violent crime rates don’t seem to be much lower in countries with higher incidences of prison rape or prison hospitalizations. I would like to see some rigorous analysis on this.
4) Violent crime rates don’t seem to be much higher in countries that employ flogging or caning. Again, not a rigorous statistical analysis, but weak evidence nonetheless.
5) Let’s not forget that we’re trying to minimize violent crime, and prison brutality is just the perpetration of violent crime while in prison. Prisoners are people too, and many of them are innocent or overcharged. Determining optimal brutality levels will take this into account.
6) And of course I shouldn’t even have to say that a large number of people undergoing the brutality of prison are completely innocent of hurting anybody at all; they are only guilty of crimes that shouldn’t be crimes.
I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the brutality levels in western prisons are optimal. But are they a deterrent? Yeah, sure. And the death penalty is a deterrent of shoplifting. What’s the relevance to the actual debate of prison brutality? That people who applaud prison brutality have a point? Not any more than advocates of the death penalty for shoplifting do.
In that case you are completely correct! But I think the counteropinion generally being expressed here, if not clearly, is that prisons are extremely brutal.
But I think the counteropinion generally being expressed here, if not clearly, is that prisons are extremely brutal.
My point is basically “so what?”, i.e., they’re missing part of their argument.
Also, extremely brutal compared to what? As ArisKatsaris pointed out in several places in this thread the most dangerous thing prisoners have to fear in modern prisons is their fellow prisoners.
There’s an argument (first advanced by Beccaria in the late 18th century) that it matters more that punishment be swift and certain, than that it be harsh. If people don’t really believe a punishment is likely to happen to them, it won’t deter reliably. Human cognitive biases being what they are, we might be better served trying to make punishment visible, rather than horrifying. Azkaban, being remote and unpleasant to think about, is perhaps less effective than some punishment that would be constantly in sight. Having the convicted criminal’s wand broken. say.
In a society with veritaserum, legilimency and assorted other magic you’d think it would be straightforward to establish guilt or innocence in the vast majority of cases.
In a society with veritaserum, legilimency and assorted other magic you’d think it would be straightforward to establish guilt or innocence in the vast majority of cases.
Of course, said society also has occlumency and memory charms.
My point is that with prisons, the more brutal, the more effective. Yes, there are tradeoffs to consider. I actually agree with your statement here that the justice system would work better if people were willing to admit its main purpose was deterrent, secondarily detention, and not implicitly delegate the brutality part to other convicts so they can wipe their hands of it.
Here’s one more option:
e) People don’t think enough about the level of brutality in prisons, and when they do think and talk about it they find it easier to applaud brutality; because anyone who spoke against it “would associate themselves with criminals, with weakness, with distasteful things that people would rather not think about”, while speaking in its favor make you look tough on crime.
Given political discussions I’ve partaken in other forums, I know full well that whenever I condemned prison rape and suggested ways in which it might be reduced/prevented, the typical response was something to the effect of “Why do you love criminals so much?”
For example: Punish rapes among inmates in the same manner that other rapes of citizens by other citizens. Punish rapes of inmates by wardens in the same way with the additional loading that should be applied to all abuses of authority, particularly state sanctioned authority. But to do that we would need to replace Uncle Sam with Uncle Ben.
That would be by sending them to prison, which is not much of a punishment to someone who’s already in prison.
Yes it is. Not all sentences are life sentences. Then there are the obvious differences in types of imprisonment—including level of security and whether they have access to other prisoners or are confined to solitary.
Not all, but entirely too many. If someone is already going to be in a big concrete box for the next ten years no matter what they do, and doesn’t expect to survive more than five years in that environment, what more can you do to them?
Put them in a smaller concrete box and with other prisoners that lower that estimate of their lifespan?
Assume they’re already in the worst box that various legislation (mostly related to human rights) permits you to construct, or the closest cost-effective approximation thereof.
At that point, if they are not already, they should be put into solitary. Some would consider it reward, but if they prey on others, then they should be put somewhere that they can’t—that’s (ostensibly) why they’re there in the first place, at least in part.
Locking criminals up for years, away from everyone else, seems like a horrible way of scaring others into not committing crimes.
Following this train of thought, ideally prisons should be replaced with a more public/visible type of punishment. Maybe caning?
I dunno. In the real world, I know a lot of people who seem awfully frightened of prisons. But sure, maybe they’d be more frightened of public caning.
Well, being brutal is directly connected to a prison’s ability to serve its function.
The stated function of a prison is to imprison (i.e. detain). If the function of the prison was to get people physically hurt, then the state would have official torturers to brutalize people to such exact specifications as their convictions by the courts (e.g. official sentences would state things like “ten years in prison, plus three beatings and one anal rape per month”, and the state would hire official rapists for the purpose).
If brutality was supposed to be part of a prison’s specification, then we would have the responsibility of quantifying how much brutality is deserved for each crime. (the question you asked “How brutal should they be?” doesn’t only work for people criticizing their current brutality, but also for the people who support it, you see)
But the delegation of this task randomly to convicts speaks of the same hypocrisy that Quirrel mocks in the chapters in question.
There are several functions commonly ascribed to prisons, including:
Detention: to prevent people with criminal tendencies from having the opportunity to commit crimes against the general public, by physically separating them from the public.
Deterrence: to deprive criminals of the pleasures of normal society, in order to discourage other people from becoming criminals. If you would like to live with your partner, children, and friends in relative comfort instead of with a cellmate in relative discomfort, you have a motivation for staying out of prison.
Rehabilitation: to cure criminals of tendencies that may lead them to commit crimes; for instance, lack of cultural or moral education, or lack of non-criminal job skills. This is given as a reason for prisons to offer classes, job training, etc.
Penitence: to put criminals in an isolating environment where they will reflect on their crimes and regret them — or a panoptic environment in which they will internalize the conduct standards of the authorities.
(I’m not disagreeing with you on the badness of prison brutality; just on the “stated function” claim.)
That’s not exactly an undisputed assertion.
Penitentiaries were name for the theory that prisoners should be penitent. More generally, rehabilitation is often a purpose of imprisonment.
It’s a factor for every US federal judge to consider when deciding what sentence to impose. In fairness, 3553(a) authorizes a judge to consider just about anything—it’s totally agnostic as to the appropriate theory of punishment.
True, but neither is the theory of evolution. ;)
When it comes down to it, the purpose of prisons is to reduce crime. The two main methods by which they accomplish this are being sufficiently nasty to deter would be criminals, and keeping the people who fail to be deterred confined so they can’t victimize law-abiding citizens.
Rehabilitation mostly exists so that (some of the) people doing the locking up can signal their compassion by supporting it.
Rapes, murders, and beatings in prison are also supposed to be crimes, no?
At this point you’re surely using the same argument that would be used to justify Dementors in Azkaban—it makes Azkaban nastier: hence it serves as deterrent.
And I’ve yet to hear a good counterargument.
If your argument is simply “brutality acts as a deterrent,” it’s almost certainly true. If your argument is, “Therefore the current level of prison brutality is optimal,” or, “we should be happy with prison brutality,” the only counterargument needed is that nobody’s provided any evidence at all for those positions.
But if either of those is the assertion, here are some counterarguments: 1) There is a countereffect: longer (and therefore more brutal) prison sentences increase rates of recidivism. 2) Flogging and caning are brutal deterrents. Many (most?) people will take a punishment of flogging over a punishment of a long prison sentence when given the choice. Ergo at least for many, prisons are more brutal than literal torture. 3) From a cursory glance at stats, violent crime rates don’t seem to be much lower in countries with higher incidences of prison rape or prison hospitalizations. I would like to see some rigorous analysis on this. 4) Violent crime rates don’t seem to be much higher in countries that employ flogging or caning. Again, not a rigorous statistical analysis, but weak evidence nonetheless. 5) Let’s not forget that we’re trying to minimize violent crime, and prison brutality is just the perpetration of violent crime while in prison. Prisoners are people too, and many of them are innocent or overcharged. Determining optimal brutality levels will take this into account. 6) And of course I shouldn’t even have to say that a large number of people undergoing the brutality of prison are completely innocent of hurting anybody at all; they are only guilty of crimes that shouldn’t be crimes.
I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the brutality levels in western prisons are optimal. But are they a deterrent? Yeah, sure. And the death penalty is a deterrent of shoplifting. What’s the relevance to the actual debate of prison brutality? That people who applaud prison brutality have a point? Not any more than advocates of the death penalty for shoplifting do.
My point that the merely pointing out that prisons are brutal is not enough to argue that they should be made less brutal.
In that case you are completely correct! But I think the counteropinion generally being expressed here, if not clearly, is that prisons are extremely brutal.
My point is basically “so what?”, i.e., they’re missing part of their argument.
Also, extremely brutal compared to what? As ArisKatsaris pointed out in several places in this thread the most dangerous thing prisoners have to fear in modern prisons is their fellow prisoners.
Hurting people is bad.
There’s an argument (first advanced by Beccaria in the late 18th century) that it matters more that punishment be swift and certain, than that it be harsh. If people don’t really believe a punishment is likely to happen to them, it won’t deter reliably. Human cognitive biases being what they are, we might be better served trying to make punishment visible, rather than horrifying. Azkaban, being remote and unpleasant to think about, is perhaps less effective than some punishment that would be constantly in sight. Having the convicted criminal’s wand broken. say.
Beccaria puts it much better than I could, so I’ll just refer you to his essay on the topic: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_Crimes_and_Punishments/Chapter_XXVII
In a society with veritaserum, legilimency and assorted other magic you’d think it would be straightforward to establish guilt or innocence in the vast majority of cases.
Of course, said society also has occlumency and memory charms.
It’s not as if you’ve stated the exact position you want a counterargument to: Is it “the more brutal the better”?
My point is that with prisons, the more brutal, the more effective. Yes, there are tradeoffs to consider. I actually agree with your statement here that the justice system would work better if people were willing to admit its main purpose was deterrent, secondarily detention, and not implicitly delegate the brutality part to other convicts so they can wipe their hands of it.