I agree that the present-day U.S. prisons are absolutely horrible. On the other hand, their awfulness is an important element of deterrence, so it’s not entirely clear what the net consequences of making them less awful would be.
With such high recidivism rates, though, deterrence doesn’t seem to be working too well.
As I think about this further, it occurs to me that maybe the deterrent effect partially results from people’s fear of the unknown. Once a person has been in prison, even with its awfulness, it might not seem as bad. (There’s also the problem that many repeat offenders come from environments so unstable that prison hardly seems bad by comparison, no matter what.)
It is also unclear what would be the cost of keeping such a large prison population in much better conditions.
One problem is the unreasonable size of the population itself, due in large part to the absurdity of U.S. drug laws and penalties. The large size of the prison population serves to point out that we should be trying to improve the system in a variety of ways. Also, just to clarify, when I made the Rawlsian argument about prisons, I was referring more to the incarceration vs. rehabilitation debate than the awfulness of conditions in general.
On the whole, it seems to me that what evidence exists suggests that the harsh approach emphasizing deterrence and incapacitation has so far been vindicated much better in practice than the attempts to make rehabilitation feasible on a mass scale.
Yes, I agree, but we should note that deterrence and incapacitation are much easier to implement effectively than rehabilitation. Locking people up is something we’ve known how to do for millennia; we’re not quite as practiced at understanding human psychology and neurology.
With such high recidivism rates, though, deterrence doesn’t seem to be working too well.
Not necessarily. Even very effective deterrence that drastically cuts crime may coexist with high recidivism rates, since those who ever get imprisoned in the first place are those for whom deterrence is less effective. A high percentage of repeat offenders among former prisoners doesn’t mean that there isn’t a huge population of potential offenders that are successfully deterred altogether. (Whether this is true is of course arguable.)
One problem is the unreasonable size of the population itself, due in large part to the absurdity of U.S. drug laws and penalties.
I don’t think “absurdity” is the right word. Drug laws are among those selectively enforced sweeping provisions that give the authorities a broad enough latitude to use them as pretext for enforcement of unwritten de facto norms which would be nowadays found unconstitutional or at least perceived as scandalous if spelled out explicitly, even though all respectable people hypocritically expect them to be enforced for their own benefit. Here I especially have in mind those norms that used to be enforced more openly through anti-vagrancy, anti-loitering, and similar laws. These are no longer considered constitutional, but respectable people still want the authorities to keep the underclass away from them.
In a sense, drug laws are for the underclass what the insider trading, arcane tax violations, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and similar vague and sweeping laws are for the rich.
As I think about this further, it occurs to me that maybe the deterrent effect partially results from people’s fear of the unknown. Once a person has been in prison, even with its awfulness, it might not seem as bad.
Also, a significant element of any criminal punishment is the subsequent stigma of having been subjected to it, both informal and official (as reflected in background checks). This factor is clearly less relevant for repeated imprisonment.
Locking people up is something we’ve known how to do for millennia; we’re not quite as practiced at understanding human psychology and neurology.
Minor quibble: my understanding is that, in European-derived cultures at least, prison time as a punishment for crime in its own right is actually a relatively recent (i.e. post-Enlightenment) development. We’ve locked people up for millennia, but the victims have usually been political prisoners, prisoners of war, or people awaiting other forms of punishment.
Not that this really degrades your point about deterrence and incapacitation being easier to implement than rehabilitation.
With such high recidivism rates, though, deterrence doesn’t seem to be working too well.
As I think about this further, it occurs to me that maybe the deterrent effect partially results from people’s fear of the unknown. Once a person has been in prison, even with its awfulness, it might not seem as bad. (There’s also the problem that many repeat offenders come from environments so unstable that prison hardly seems bad by comparison, no matter what.)
One problem is the unreasonable size of the population itself, due in large part to the absurdity of U.S. drug laws and penalties. The large size of the prison population serves to point out that we should be trying to improve the system in a variety of ways. Also, just to clarify, when I made the Rawlsian argument about prisons, I was referring more to the incarceration vs. rehabilitation debate than the awfulness of conditions in general.
Yes, I agree, but we should note that deterrence and incapacitation are much easier to implement effectively than rehabilitation. Locking people up is something we’ve known how to do for millennia; we’re not quite as practiced at understanding human psychology and neurology.
Not necessarily. Even very effective deterrence that drastically cuts crime may coexist with high recidivism rates, since those who ever get imprisoned in the first place are those for whom deterrence is less effective. A high percentage of repeat offenders among former prisoners doesn’t mean that there isn’t a huge population of potential offenders that are successfully deterred altogether. (Whether this is true is of course arguable.)
I don’t think “absurdity” is the right word. Drug laws are among those selectively enforced sweeping provisions that give the authorities a broad enough latitude to use them as pretext for enforcement of unwritten de facto norms which would be nowadays found unconstitutional or at least perceived as scandalous if spelled out explicitly, even though all respectable people hypocritically expect them to be enforced for their own benefit. Here I especially have in mind those norms that used to be enforced more openly through anti-vagrancy, anti-loitering, and similar laws. These are no longer considered constitutional, but respectable people still want the authorities to keep the underclass away from them.
In a sense, drug laws are for the underclass what the insider trading, arcane tax violations, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and similar vague and sweeping laws are for the rich.
Also, a significant element of any criminal punishment is the subsequent stigma of having been subjected to it, both informal and official (as reflected in background checks). This factor is clearly less relevant for repeated imprisonment.
All good points.
Minor quibble: my understanding is that, in European-derived cultures at least, prison time as a punishment for crime in its own right is actually a relatively recent (i.e. post-Enlightenment) development. We’ve locked people up for millennia, but the victims have usually been political prisoners, prisoners of war, or people awaiting other forms of punishment.
Not that this really degrades your point about deterrence and incapacitation being easier to implement than rehabilitation.