Zanket said:
“ Originally Posted by teguy
Your assertion in this case relies upon the notion that "once a theft, always a theft". That is, if someone commits, for instance, a murder, he would most likely to commit the same crime again and again. I am, however, of the opinion that humans are capable of changing his life for better. ”
I am of the same opinion, but what humans are capable of is different than what they do. “Once a theft, always a theft” implies a 100% re-offense rate. It’s not 100% but it’s not zero either, and it is closely related to the type of crime and the history of the inmate.
Yet, considering the fact that the US criminal system allows capital punishment, it abides by the notion that "onece a theft, always a theft". Certainly its opposite (i.e., zero% of re-offence rate), can not be achieved practically, thus there are various different degrees of punishment within the frame of 'humane considerations' to the convict (here, I would say capital punishment is 'inhumane' in that it measures human capacity, or lack thereof, to its 100% certainty - I cannot fathom if any one is capable of doing so).
“ Because neither of the options are available in European system (possibly a life in prison w/o parole but it must be very rare) so I cannot quantify the degree to which one suffers under such extreme circumstances. I think both options should be abolished for the sake of humanity. ”
Why would you abolish life in prison w/o parole in cases where the re-offense rate was estimated to be, say, 75% and the crime was murder? I’ve seen interviews with inmates saying that they think they will kill again if released. How could you release them in good conscience, even if they are 70 years old?
Perhaps those inmates in the States are mentally ill to begin with: for those of us with sever mental conditions, the state should provide a rehabilitation facility rather than keep them in prison.
When I came to Philadelphia, USA for college, I was simply stunned by the high number of homeless people there. I can, btw, blame those homeless people in Norway, Germany or Northern Euro in general for their lasiness. But I cannot possibly blame for the same reason in the States. The majority of homeless in the States are mentally-retarded-poor-black-male (and often time female, too). The reason why I cannot blame them is because they are not on the equal ground to begin with; they have been discriminated since they were born. That is, they are basically sub-human. I beleive that many of convicts in the US have come from such predicament social background. And further treated worse by the US prison system, and by the time one gets out of prison, he is not even sub-human, but more or less an animal. Animals need be kept in cage, or else culled: Accordingly, the US criminal system provides both options.
I don't think this merely reflects a minority report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/
“ Besides, I have yet to see a study that shows the longer a prison sentence, the more a convict gets rehabilitated. ”
Not my belief either. If anything it is the opposite. I’m not suggesting that prison is rehabilitation. It should attempt that with some balance (x number of dollars to ensure inmates have dignity, educational and recreational opportunities, for example). After doing what can be reasonably done in that direction, you determine the re-offense rate and then make the decision about paroling an inmate or altering the length of prison sentences for the newly convicted.
Your proposal here suggests a drastic increase in taxes. As far as I understand the US social system (and her superstructure), she is not the kind of type who favours a tax increase of any sort; even if the result would increase overall safety to each individual: Current US president, along with the majority of his constituents, examplifies the ideology.
“ Considering the practical fact that you hardly have any sense of 'freedom' of the convict in the US prison system, what's to be considered be reduced to a mere security to society: If indeed a convict is so dangerous to society, it might be 'safer' to rid of him via death penalty so as to completely abolish the possiblity of him escaping; ”
The threat of escape is negligible at the maximum security prisons.
Correct. But - with your rationale - "it's not zero either."
“ I am not sure about your presupposition that, again, "one a theft, always a theft". Here are some examples that assert otherwise: ” [The author corrected his misspellings]
I will review those in detail. Took a look at the first one...it does not seem to consider the severity of the crime. A type of crime could have a 1% re-offense rate but still justify a life sentence due to the severity. If there is a 1% chance that a released inmate will murder then every 100 similar inmates that you release results in one murder on average. Undoubtedly a large percentage of the public would feel that that rate is too high to allow, versus the alternative of keeping them in prison.
It depends. By comparing two nations - Norway and the States - one can certainly quantify how much the "1%" chance of re-offence affects their societies. In Norway, the total murder rate is 1.99 person per 100,000 of population (see the statistic given in my previous post). Since the entire population of Norway is 4,154,000, you would get 89.8286 of people killed per year by murder. Provided that the ratio of a victim and the offender per murder crime is 1 to 1, you would get 0.8084574 person gets killed each year by re-offenders. On the contrary to the low figure in Norway (which doesn't even make up a single person), in the US (with the same method), you have 220.3128648 persons get killed each year by re-offenders (as US' murder rate is 8.4 per 100,000 vis-a-vis 291,038,000 of entire population): No wonder "
ndoubtedly a large percentage of the [American] public would feel that that rate is too high to allow. . ."
It seems though that the very core of the problem in the US criminal system (and exclusive to her) is not how much prison sentences should be given to offenders in relation to the occurences of crime by re-offenders. But it rests upon the very structure of society. If each individual is treated on the equally recognised level, I expect that the crime rate will be lowered. If indeed that be the key to the low crime ratio, the US unfortunately must abide by the 'tough' measures, for now and perhaps for ever.
best,