Turn Prisons into Colleges(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Turn Prisons into Colleges
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/opinion/prisons-colleges-education.html
22 comments
>In reality, a large swath of the incarcerated population is not motivated to pursue additional education, or really any program that might help them get their lives back on track.
Maybe your point is valid for some state prisons, but in my experience it is not that true.
During my state incarceration in Alaska, the education directors had me develop and teach computer classes. There were waiting lists of inmates who wanted to take them. I taught basic computer knowledge (hardware and operating systems), Office program usage (Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Access), and VB.NET programming.
I tried to get the University of Alaska to allow me to take some courses by correspondence, but they were not interested. All I could do was get one of the math professors to send me a few dated textbooks.
In the federal prison system, there were Vocational Training classes that were always full. I took the V.T. Drafting course in one and then tutored it. That class taught 4 months of board drafting and then 6 months of AutoCAD. It had about 45 students enrolled all the time. Sadly, I discovered on release that drafting is no longer a profession due to the new modelling packages that enable engineers to lay out their drawings nearly instantly. However, I can still read blueprints, and can whip one up in a jiffy when a customer needs one for a shed they want to buy from me.
There were no options for college classes in the federal system without having some wealth to pay for them.
Maybe your point is valid for some state prisons, but in my experience it is not that true.
During my state incarceration in Alaska, the education directors had me develop and teach computer classes. There were waiting lists of inmates who wanted to take them. I taught basic computer knowledge (hardware and operating systems), Office program usage (Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Access), and VB.NET programming.
I tried to get the University of Alaska to allow me to take some courses by correspondence, but they were not interested. All I could do was get one of the math professors to send me a few dated textbooks.
In the federal prison system, there were Vocational Training classes that were always full. I took the V.T. Drafting course in one and then tutored it. That class taught 4 months of board drafting and then 6 months of AutoCAD. It had about 45 students enrolled all the time. Sadly, I discovered on release that drafting is no longer a profession due to the new modelling packages that enable engineers to lay out their drawings nearly instantly. However, I can still read blueprints, and can whip one up in a jiffy when a customer needs one for a shed they want to buy from me.
There were no options for college classes in the federal system without having some wealth to pay for them.
The prison as a monastic/craftsman environment would be closer to reality. Programming, poetry, pottery ... the craft that is mastered is broad. The monastic side of healthy food, exercise, and solitude by choice (a few hours of solitary as a privilege). You raise inmate seratonin and they become functional members of society again.
Prison was put in place as a catch all when we didn't understand all the ways humans could be broken. Now we have a better idea, but we don't use that information. Instead low iq career criminals are incarcerated with high iq crimes of passion like Hans Reiser. Then you add drug addicts and child molesters to the mix.
Hans Reiser would likely never kill another person in his life if he was free. If he could have full access to a computer he would have likely continued to learn and build things. Instead we dump him with the rest of the dregs of society together into a broken system who's main role is retribution, which IMO is a human instinct we should fight against not codify.
It seems a lot like the public school system in it's general lack of differentiation in regards to inputs(prisoners). In terms of a learning system, it's diverged.
Hans Reiser would likely never kill another person in his life if he was free. If he could have full access to a computer he would have likely continued to learn and build things. Instead we dump him with the rest of the dregs of society together into a broken system who's main role is retribution, which IMO is a human instinct we should fight against not codify.
It seems a lot like the public school system in it's general lack of differentiation in regards to inputs(prisoners). In terms of a learning system, it's diverged.
I wasn’t familiar with the Reiser case, but just read it.
He murdered his wife, hid the body, lied and denied it vigorously in court, was found guilty of premeditated (first degree) murder, and bargained it down to second degree murder charges by showing the police where he buried her body. I think a life sentence is reasonable for that.
He murdered his wife, hid the body, lied and denied it vigorously in court, was found guilty of premeditated (first degree) murder, and bargained it down to second degree murder charges by showing the police where he buried her body. I think a life sentence is reasonable for that.
He was offered and declined a plea bargain that would’ve given him the minimum sentence of three years:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/10/reiser_rejected_vol...
The guy’s a delusional moron…
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser#Time_in_prison
“In July 2012, a jury awarded Reiser's children $60 million against their father for the death of Nina Reiser. Reiser acted as his own attorney during the trial and tried to argue that he killed his wife to protect their children.”
It’s unclear that a parole board will find him to be a very sympathetic character.
The guy’s a delusional moron…
Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser#Time_in_prison
“In July 2012, a jury awarded Reiser's children $60 million against their father for the death of Nina Reiser. Reiser acted as his own attorney during the trial and tried to argue that he killed his wife to protect their children.”
It’s unclear that a parole board will find him to be a very sympathetic character.
Where did all that money come from? Moron is right.
Aside from this being a morally unhinged argument that you're trying to make here - Reiserfs had some pretty glaring issues involving locks and disk corruption that were never really addressed. I think it's probably best he focus on his issues rather than half baked file systems for the remainder of his sentence.
> Instead we dump him with the rest of the dregs of society
You’re really one for the common man, huh?
In all seriousness though, whether or not Reisner would be a productive member of society if released, isn’t the right thing to do to focus first on identifying and freeing people on death row who are wrongfully convicted? And, if we are speaking of justice, nonviolent offenders in prison because of draconian drug laws? And then after that get around to violent offenders whose chance of recidivism is low?
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
You’re really one for the common man, huh?
In all seriousness though, whether or not Reisner would be a productive member of society if released, isn’t the right thing to do to focus first on identifying and freeing people on death row who are wrongfully convicted? And, if we are speaking of justice, nonviolent offenders in prison because of draconian drug laws? And then after that get around to violent offenders whose chance of recidivism is low?
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Oh - and, if it’s squandered human potential we care about, meaningful reentry programs for those who have served their time, and allowing them to vote?
He killed his wife because she wanted to leave him. How can we know he wouldn't act the same way in any future relationship turned sour?
> Hans Reiser would likely never kill another person in his life if he was free.
Why not? He killed one already for no good reason. His high IQ just means he has less of an excuse. It doesn't make him a better person.
Why not? He killed one already for no good reason. His high IQ just means he has less of an excuse. It doesn't make him a better person.
I'm sick of the apologia for these unforgivable criminals. By all means separate them from each other based on circumstances, for their own good, but if you murder people you're unfit to live in society, full stop.
The GP's point, I think, is that "unfit to live in society" doesn't mean "must live in some sort of hell-hole." Prison can just be another, slightly worse society. Like penal colonies were, before we stopped doing those.
I thought the point was that we should look at IQ in determining punishment and risk of recidivism. Which is a deeply misguided idea.
>I thought the point was that we should look at IQ in determining punishment and risk of recidivism
That was not my point. My point was the system does not differentiate among people.
That was not my point. My point was the system does not differentiate among people.
I can see how you got that, but it's not at all how I read it. I don't think whataretensors is proposing that Hans Resier's abilities should lessen his punishment, but rather that we should allow him to continue using his abilities during his incarceration, and possibly contribute to society instead of being dead weight.
That's fair, perhaps I misread it.
If you murder 'people' or murder a person? What about manslaughter? Is that full stop too?
[deleted]
>Hans Reiser would likely never kill another person in his life if he was free.
You seriously think that he wouldn't kill again if his next wife or lover "betrayed him" in his mind? If you feel that way, why don't we just give his children a pass to murder him because he took their mother from them?
>If he could have full access to a computer he would have likely continued to learn and build things. Instead we dump him with the rest of the dregs of society
He murdered his wife, a crime to which he freely plead guilty. He is the dregs of society.
You seriously think that he wouldn't kill again if his next wife or lover "betrayed him" in his mind? If you feel that way, why don't we just give his children a pass to murder him because he took their mother from them?
>If he could have full access to a computer he would have likely continued to learn and build things. Instead we dump him with the rest of the dregs of society
He murdered his wife, a crime to which he freely plead guilty. He is the dregs of society.
Colleges have admission and performance standards. Why not prison colleges? Select inmates motivated to learn and send them to a separate facility. If they don't take advantage of the opportunity or become a problem, send them back.
Peers matter. If you stick a dumb kid who screwed up in a prison full of hardened career criminals, you're likely going to get a career criminal. Surround him with other dumb kids trying to figure out how to recover from their mistakes and something different can happen. A separate prison college serves this purpose well too.
Peers matter. If you stick a dumb kid who screwed up in a prison full of hardened career criminals, you're likely going to get a career criminal. Surround him with other dumb kids trying to figure out how to recover from their mistakes and something different can happen. A separate prison college serves this purpose well too.
Maybe YC can fund a "better prisons" startup?
I'd be happy to be involved in such a project.
I'd be happy to be involved in such a project.
id prefer to keep profit motives well away from things like the prison system.
Unfortunately, that cat's been out of the bag for decades.
I'm a felon. Trafficking Marijuana. I considered the consequences, and knew it was very unlikely I would get sentenced to jail time, so for me the consequences played a role in the amount of marijuana I was willing to traffic(i.e. not enough to be likely jail time) What I vastly underestimated is the long term reduction in earning potential, and the level of instantly shut doors/disrespect that comes along with being a felon.
Anyways, I moved to tech bc it seemed like the easiest place to get a decent paying job w/ said conviction. I'm a white, well-spoken, intelligent and motivated male with a great family and support structure, connections, etc. and for me it is/was/will be incredibly difficult to overcome, so I can just imagine what it's like for less (attractive?) candidates. I will work my way into the position where I can take the extra risk involved in hiring people with criminal records if they are otherwise good cantidates, bc I've been through it.
Providing prison education is pivotal to helping the recidivism rate, as is promoting attitude changes toward hiring criminals. (the ones who got caught)
Anyways, I moved to tech bc it seemed like the easiest place to get a decent paying job w/ said conviction. I'm a white, well-spoken, intelligent and motivated male with a great family and support structure, connections, etc. and for me it is/was/will be incredibly difficult to overcome, so I can just imagine what it's like for less (attractive?) candidates. I will work my way into the position where I can take the extra risk involved in hiring people with criminal records if they are otherwise good cantidates, bc I've been through it.
Providing prison education is pivotal to helping the recidivism rate, as is promoting attitude changes toward hiring criminals. (the ones who got caught)
That is heart breaking. Hopefully you live in a state where the records of Marijuana offenders will be expunged eventually.
Thanks, I do. However as time goes on, I'm less sure if I will, it's actually become a nice filter for excluding people I'd rather not work with/for.
> Hopefully you live in a state where the records of Marijuana offenders will be expunged eventually.
I don't necessarily disagree with nixing arrests for personal amounts / use of Marijuana, even the "I sold my buddy a dime bag worth that one time," but once we get into serious commercial activity is it not valid to keep those particular convictions?
I don't necessarily disagree with nixing arrests for personal amounts / use of Marijuana, even the "I sold my buddy a dime bag worth that one time," but once we get into serious commercial activity is it not valid to keep those particular convictions?
Simply, no. Marijuana prohibition is bad law, and convictions just for selling and possessing weed, unaccompanied by any other criminal activity, are morally and ethically unjustifiable. When the law dies, as it surely will, society will be well served if those convictions are expunged, restoring their victims to full access to commerce and employment.
Again, I don't particularly feel strongly about it, but it feels off that someone trafficking large amounts of a drug, even if it's just pot, are let off. It demonstrates a clear willingness to to disregard law for personal gain.
In general, I don't really give a shit about drugs or drug use. Perhaps the feeling is just years of Drug War indoctrination, but it feels wrong and I'm trying to grapple with "Why" by asking.
In general, I don't really give a shit about drugs or drug use. Perhaps the feeling is just years of Drug War indoctrination, but it feels wrong and I'm trying to grapple with "Why" by asking.
> "clear willingness to to disregard law for personal gain"
You mean, the way you disregard the law when you speed in order to get somewhere sooner? Yes, I'm equating speeding with the use of marijuana. And I'd argue that speeding is actually way more dangerous.
I apologize if this comes off as harsh, but the sentiment you express has contributed to horrific abuse of the legal system for decades. Too many people feel generally like you do, willing to put up with wildly disproportionate punishments for no other reason than a law was broken, even if they don't really think the activities should be considered criminal.
Think about what you're saying: you don't really care much about the moral standing of the law, but you don't mind that folks prosecuted under it have their lives destroyed (sorry if I've distorted your position).
Remember, there's a lot of devil in the details of drug law. Florida, for example, assumes intent to distribute if you possess more than 20 grams of weed, allowing up to 5 years in prison and ten grand in fines. If the prosecutor finds a school, public housing, or even a fucking park within a thousand feet of your arrest, they can put you in prison for up to 15 years.
It's good that you're not a drug warrior type, and the american public as a whole is definitely coming to its senses regarding marijuana. But what kind of society puts up with destroying peoples lives for the sake of laws that they don't really feel strongly about?
You mean, the way you disregard the law when you speed in order to get somewhere sooner? Yes, I'm equating speeding with the use of marijuana. And I'd argue that speeding is actually way more dangerous.
I apologize if this comes off as harsh, but the sentiment you express has contributed to horrific abuse of the legal system for decades. Too many people feel generally like you do, willing to put up with wildly disproportionate punishments for no other reason than a law was broken, even if they don't really think the activities should be considered criminal.
Think about what you're saying: you don't really care much about the moral standing of the law, but you don't mind that folks prosecuted under it have their lives destroyed (sorry if I've distorted your position).
Remember, there's a lot of devil in the details of drug law. Florida, for example, assumes intent to distribute if you possess more than 20 grams of weed, allowing up to 5 years in prison and ten grand in fines. If the prosecutor finds a school, public housing, or even a fucking park within a thousand feet of your arrest, they can put you in prison for up to 15 years.
It's good that you're not a drug warrior type, and the american public as a whole is definitely coming to its senses regarding marijuana. But what kind of society puts up with destroying peoples lives for the sake of laws that they don't really feel strongly about?
Thanks Nate, I have to consider my position and how people perceive my intentions when discussing it, so I can't be as harsh as I think the situation necessitates to change opinions. And even with ban the box laws like CA has recently passed, with public record scraping services stored in private databases,the info is not going away even w expungment(not sure that it should). We need to change perception if for no other reason than: IT COST A FUCK TON OF MONEY to support people who don't participate in the economy, lifelong barriers/stigma very much alienate people from reintegration.
I admire your toughness, or magnanimity, or whatever word I'm looking for. I'm not sure I'd end up with as positive an attitude as you appear to have. That thing you said about trying to get to a place where you can prevent others from being unfairly discriminated against... that says so much about you I think. Even if you never get to that position, you've managed to turn a viciously unfair circumstance into something strong and positive for yourself. Much respect
Wow, I've never been called magnanimous before, lets go with that;-).
>Even if you never get to that position I will. I've recently been sucessfully asserting my way into those decisions where I am now, so I'm close already.
I really appreciate the compliment, the respect is mutual.
It's taken time, effort and reflection to not be bitter about it. Bitteress is not helpful, plus: Everyone loves a comeback!
>Even if you never get to that position I will. I've recently been sucessfully asserting my way into those decisions where I am now, so I'm close already.
I really appreciate the compliment, the respect is mutual.
It's taken time, effort and reflection to not be bitter about it. Bitteress is not helpful, plus: Everyone loves a comeback!
>It demonstrates a clear willingness to to disregard law for personal gain.
I agree completely. I think it very much depends on what law is disregarded. Violators of immigration law are clearly guilty of this. My observation regarding marijuana was that it's very much tolerated, and the serverity the penalties are way out of line with public opinion, which is why the sentencing guidelines are rarely followed. In my specific circumstance, I did not get off free, just didn't go to prison. Knowing what I know now, given the option I would have happily traded a year or two in prison for the option of record expungment.
I agree completely. I think it very much depends on what law is disregarded. Violators of immigration law are clearly guilty of this. My observation regarding marijuana was that it's very much tolerated, and the serverity the penalties are way out of line with public opinion, which is why the sentencing guidelines are rarely followed. In my specific circumstance, I did not get off free, just didn't go to prison. Knowing what I know now, given the option I would have happily traded a year or two in prison for the option of record expungment.
I'm undecided on what should be done. Genuinely curious if you have an opinion on what constitutes serious criminal activity that is valid to keep?
"a study published in 2013 by the right-leaning RAND Corporation showing that inmates who took classes had a 43 percent lower likelihood of recidivism and a 13 percent higher likelihood of getting a job after leaving prison."
Of course, these are the more capable people in the first place. Most people in prison are too stupid for college. A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population so it can't be used as an expensive arms race of a signaling mechanism by everybody else.
Of course, these are the more capable people in the first place. Most people in prison are too stupid for college. A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population so it can't be used as an expensive arms race of a signaling mechanism by everybody else.
> Most people in prison are too stupid for college.
[citation needed] on this incredibly inflammatory comment. Yes, people tend to end up in prison after a chain of bad decisions, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're unintelligent to the point of being incapable of learning things.
Arguably, a successful drug dealer has far more real-world experience in economics than a college grad on the topic.
[citation needed] on this incredibly inflammatory comment. Yes, people tend to end up in prison after a chain of bad decisions, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're unintelligent to the point of being incapable of learning things.
Arguably, a successful drug dealer has far more real-world experience in economics than a college grad on the topic.
I will point out that learning things and college are not the same thing. I feel that I know how to learn, but I am too 'stupid' to learn in a scholastic environment. It becomes a frustrating experience as you're left scrambling to learn using more effective methods in the off-hours and wasting your time the rest of the time. And I imagine frustration is already high among those in jail before you try to add more on them.
Well, true; it's completely possible to get through college without picking up anything lasting.
Class-time is a minority of the learning time. The basic idea is to gain a basic familiarization before class, then (during class) hopefully have the professor explain the same ideas in a different way and provide an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. Assignments should be structured to illustrate the concepts and encourage reaching a bit past what was taught. You shouldn't be doing the bulk of the learning in the classroom itself, IMO. Homework is for you. Tests are a final feedback of the result of the learning process.
I guess my point is that learning in the "off-hours" is kind of the intention (and is part of the best-case scenario, as described above). 2 hours of lecture implies 4 hours (or more) of extra work, done outside of the classroom, on your own or with others. School should provide structure and guidance to learning (providing a schedule, and an appropriate order of concepts to learn). Learning itself is a separate process.
Class-time is a minority of the learning time. The basic idea is to gain a basic familiarization before class, then (during class) hopefully have the professor explain the same ideas in a different way and provide an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. Assignments should be structured to illustrate the concepts and encourage reaching a bit past what was taught. You shouldn't be doing the bulk of the learning in the classroom itself, IMO. Homework is for you. Tests are a final feedback of the result of the learning process.
I guess my point is that learning in the "off-hours" is kind of the intention (and is part of the best-case scenario, as described above). 2 hours of lecture implies 4 hours (or more) of extra work, done outside of the classroom, on your own or with others. School should provide structure and guidance to learning (providing a schedule, and an appropriate order of concepts to learn). Learning itself is a separate process.
> Assignments should be structured to illustrate the concepts and encourage reaching a bit past what was taught.
I think this is the root problem. The structure never seemed right. It didn't assist with learning as it was never the appropriate topics at the appropriate time. Once you get away from college learning is so much easier as you are not dependent on the linear timeline set out by someone else. And because you're actually learning, which is one of the most pleasurable things going, you are excited to keep reaching for more. College fosters none of that.
I understand that learning on your own time is part of the package, but the problem, which I may not have effectively communicated, is that you are still left learning the 'wrong way' as you still have to stick with the course requirements while also trying to learn the 'right way' because that is the only way you are going to learn anything at all. As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.
If you are smart, I am sure that none of this is a problem and the structure of the courses are most likely to your benefit. But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work. Literally everyone can learn. Not everyone is smart.
I think this is the root problem. The structure never seemed right. It didn't assist with learning as it was never the appropriate topics at the appropriate time. Once you get away from college learning is so much easier as you are not dependent on the linear timeline set out by someone else. And because you're actually learning, which is one of the most pleasurable things going, you are excited to keep reaching for more. College fosters none of that.
I understand that learning on your own time is part of the package, but the problem, which I may not have effectively communicated, is that you are still left learning the 'wrong way' as you still have to stick with the course requirements while also trying to learn the 'right way' because that is the only way you are going to learn anything at all. As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.
If you are smart, I am sure that none of this is a problem and the structure of the courses are most likely to your benefit. But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work. Literally everyone can learn. Not everyone is smart.
For me, college was a good guide to find ideas that I might not have found on my own, or might have found in a suboptimal order. Hearing the basic ideas always got me excited enough to dig on my own, see how they're used, and what they build up to.
> As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.
The most wasted lectures that I attended were the ones that I went to, but did something else instead of asking questions. There aren't many situations where you've got a roomful of people at your level or above (including an expert in the subject) that you can pose questions to.
> But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work.
Where did you get the idea that you're stupid? I don't see any evidence of that, and thinking of yourself that way is going to damage any of your efforts. Stupid people aren't generally the kinds that come onto HackerNews to have discussions about the nature of education.
> As it is, two hours of lecture is two hours that could have been spent actually learning instead of wasting time.
The most wasted lectures that I attended were the ones that I went to, but did something else instead of asking questions. There aren't many situations where you've got a roomful of people at your level or above (including an expert in the subject) that you can pose questions to.
> But for someone who is stupid like me, it just doesn't work.
Where did you get the idea that you're stupid? I don't see any evidence of that, and thinking of yourself that way is going to damage any of your efforts. Stupid people aren't generally the kinds that come onto HackerNews to have discussions about the nature of education.
> There aren't many situations where you've got a roomful of people at your level or above (including an expert in the subject) that you can pose questions to.
While I understand the value of that in theory, in practice the questions are not available at the time the room is. This makes it mostly worthless. I understand people like you have minds that work in a different way, and that you are able to thrive in that environment. I don't want to minimize the benefit to someone like you, but you must also realize that not everyone is like you.
> Where did you get the idea that you're stupid?
Too stupid for college. I don't know if anyone is truly stupid in every way. Everyone has their speciality.
I would suggest that, given how hard education is pushed in the US that there is a reason that the attainment rate is still just ~30% for four or more year programs and ~40% for two or more year programs: Because most people simply are not capable of thriving in that environment.
I don't see that as a problem though. There are many ways to skin the cat. College doesn't need to be for everyone, and it is faulty logic to think that we should push it on everyone. Especially to those in jail who, statistically, are likely among the group that are not suited for it in the first place.
I do agree that we should do more to enable learning for those people. But, again, learning is not the same thing as college.
While I understand the value of that in theory, in practice the questions are not available at the time the room is. This makes it mostly worthless. I understand people like you have minds that work in a different way, and that you are able to thrive in that environment. I don't want to minimize the benefit to someone like you, but you must also realize that not everyone is like you.
> Where did you get the idea that you're stupid?
Too stupid for college. I don't know if anyone is truly stupid in every way. Everyone has their speciality.
I would suggest that, given how hard education is pushed in the US that there is a reason that the attainment rate is still just ~30% for four or more year programs and ~40% for two or more year programs: Because most people simply are not capable of thriving in that environment.
I don't see that as a problem though. There are many ways to skin the cat. College doesn't need to be for everyone, and it is faulty logic to think that we should push it on everyone. Especially to those in jail who, statistically, are likely among the group that are not suited for it in the first place.
I do agree that we should do more to enable learning for those people. But, again, learning is not the same thing as college.
> Too stupid for college. I don't know if anyone is truly stupid in every way. Everyone has their speciality.
I think "stupid" is the wrong word there; too many other connotations. And I think that the root issue would be something different: A learning style order/pace that's a bad match for the one common to classroom learning, if the specific professor teaches using just one or two methods to convey the information, etc.
I'm doing well professionally, but there was a certain mismatch between my learning style and the classroom teaching style. I made it work for me in the end, though.
I think "stupid" is the wrong word there; too many other connotations. And I think that the root issue would be something different: A learning style order/pace that's a bad match for the one common to classroom learning, if the specific professor teaches using just one or two methods to convey the information, etc.
I'm doing well professionally, but there was a certain mismatch between my learning style and the classroom teaching style. I made it work for me in the end, though.
Yes! College is run by ... wait for it ... people who were good at College. So its a tight positive feedback loop. There's nearly nobody there who empathizes with the rest of us. And it spins on its merry way, getting stranger and stranger.
I guess what I don't understand quite what you mean.
The lectures themselves weren't that useful to me, although learning to interpret the pattern of confusion was invaluable (like looking at a code diff, where it doesn't tell you what the problem is, just what the difference is). Often, even the textbooks weren't (another exercise in pattern matching, and comparing with other sources). I spent a lot of time learning the material in my own way, then learning the mapping between my understanding and the way that it was being taught in class.
The topics in class acted as a decent map of the "tech tree" involved in the pile of topics to study, and a possibly-appropriate order to learn them in.
Everyone thinks differently. Do you have a more efficient idea an "expert" to convey a large number of concepts to a large group of people? What's your preferred method of learning?
The lectures themselves weren't that useful to me, although learning to interpret the pattern of confusion was invaluable (like looking at a code diff, where it doesn't tell you what the problem is, just what the difference is). Often, even the textbooks weren't (another exercise in pattern matching, and comparing with other sources). I spent a lot of time learning the material in my own way, then learning the mapping between my understanding and the way that it was being taught in class.
The topics in class acted as a decent map of the "tech tree" involved in the pile of topics to study, and a possibly-appropriate order to learn them in.
Everyone thinks differently. Do you have a more efficient idea an "expert" to convey a large number of concepts to a large group of people? What's your preferred method of learning?
I'd prefer to learn from a 'teacher'. The sort of person who specializes in transmitting knowledge, adapting to the learners issues, bridging gaps between one concept and another.
Learning from folks who did well in college means they may think everyone will do well if they repeat their experience. Which is a far cry from 'teacher'. Heck, its not even 'expert'.
Learning from folks who did well in college means they may think everyone will do well if they repeat their experience. Which is a far cry from 'teacher'. Heck, its not even 'expert'.
> [citation needed] on this incredibly inflammatory comment.
The majority of people in general are too stupid for college, and criminals that get caught tend to lean towards the dumb end.
The majority of people in general are too stupid for college, and criminals that get caught tend to lean towards the dumb end.
> Most people in prison are too stupid for college.
Agreed, this is probably true for our current definition of "college"
> A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population so it can't be used as an expensive arms race of a signaling mechanism by everybody else.
Holy shit, that's a galaxy brain take. I agree that college status signaling is out of control, but doing this would just move the signaling elsewhere. Also it would be a bit fascist IMO.
Anyway, upvoted for interestingness.
Agreed, this is probably true for our current definition of "college"
> A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population so it can't be used as an expensive arms race of a signaling mechanism by everybody else.
Holy shit, that's a galaxy brain take. I agree that college status signaling is out of control, but doing this would just move the signaling elsewhere. Also it would be a bit fascist IMO.
Anyway, upvoted for interestingness.
Well I don't mean to ban private colleges -- don't have public ones other than top level state schools, and don't subsidize loans. Replace four years of debt/idleness with four years of income, and later, more years of retirement.
> Most people in prison are too stupid for college. A much better solution is to limit college education to a fixed single digit percentage of the population
Missed the /s, I'm assuming.
Missed the /s, I'm assuming.
Since when is RAND right-leaning? The author must have confused it with Ayn Rand.
if taking classes was voluntary the population of the study starts with a high selection bias, no wonder they'd be on average more industrious and self motivated than the peers that did not take classes.
Here are some interesting initiatives with interesting challenges:
https://www.khanacademy.org/resources/out-of-school-time-pro...
"Students who find themselves in prisons, jails, and correctional facilities have varied and intermittent educational backgrounds. Correctional facilities can use Khan Academy to support a variety of programs, including credit recovery, GED preparation, and adult continuing education. These facilities tend to be high-security environments with extremely limited Internet connectivity, if any.
Idaho Correctional Facilities - KA Lite, an offline version of Khan Academy, is impacting learners in the Idaho Department of Correction. The first 20 prisoners using Khan Academy exercises offline all passed the math portion of their GED course—the first time that had ever happened."
KA-Lite seems to be maintained by the Learning Equality organization:
https://learningequality.org/about/
"In the summer of 2012, our co-founder Jamie Alexandre was interning at Khan Academy when he and a fellow intern had the idea to bring Khan Academy offline using a low-cost Raspberry Pi."
https://learningequality.org/kolibri/ "Kolibri makes high quality education technology available in low-resource communities such as rural schools, refugee camps, orphanages, non-formal school systems, and prison systems."
"Students who find themselves in prisons, jails, and correctional facilities have varied and intermittent educational backgrounds. Correctional facilities can use Khan Academy to support a variety of programs, including credit recovery, GED preparation, and adult continuing education. These facilities tend to be high-security environments with extremely limited Internet connectivity, if any.
Idaho Correctional Facilities - KA Lite, an offline version of Khan Academy, is impacting learners in the Idaho Department of Correction. The first 20 prisoners using Khan Academy exercises offline all passed the math portion of their GED course—the first time that had ever happened."
KA-Lite seems to be maintained by the Learning Equality organization:
https://learningequality.org/about/
"In the summer of 2012, our co-founder Jamie Alexandre was interning at Khan Academy when he and a fellow intern had the idea to bring Khan Academy offline using a low-cost Raspberry Pi."
https://learningequality.org/kolibri/ "Kolibri makes high quality education technology available in low-resource communities such as rural schools, refugee camps, orphanages, non-formal school systems, and prison systems."
One concern I've always had when people discuss recidivism rates is that it's sort of impossible to find an effective control group, no?
Suppose you're fresh out of prison with no good employment options. My guess is that, when people talk about recidivism rates, that either look at it nominally or they try to control for socioeconomic status. But apart from socioeconomic status, I can see two major factors that might cause recidivism: 1) the personality that led you to end up in prison in the first place, and 2) the effect on your personality that your time in prison had.
Since the only way to study the personality of the prisoner population is to do so _after_ they go to prison, it seems impossible to isolate either effect. Maybe there's a clever study design that let's you do it.
Failing that though, it's sort of dishonest to assume that rehabilitation attempts or changing the prison environment in some way would be successful in reducing recidivism rates "if we would only try them."
What is the actual evidence on the efficacy of rehabilitation programs?
Suppose you're fresh out of prison with no good employment options. My guess is that, when people talk about recidivism rates, that either look at it nominally or they try to control for socioeconomic status. But apart from socioeconomic status, I can see two major factors that might cause recidivism: 1) the personality that led you to end up in prison in the first place, and 2) the effect on your personality that your time in prison had.
Since the only way to study the personality of the prisoner population is to do so _after_ they go to prison, it seems impossible to isolate either effect. Maybe there's a clever study design that let's you do it.
Failing that though, it's sort of dishonest to assume that rehabilitation attempts or changing the prison environment in some way would be successful in reducing recidivism rates "if we would only try them."
What is the actual evidence on the efficacy of rehabilitation programs?
We can compare prison systems across populations. Bastøy prison in Norway has a recidivism rate of just 16%. It seems that all things being equal (i.e. if you can assume that "personality" averages out of the statistical equation when comparing across human populations) then they are doing something very important and remarkable for their people there. See https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/04/bastoy-norwe...
I think it's interesting exploratory work, but you can't just assume that the "personality" of Norwegian prisoners is the same as American ones. There are vast environmental and cultural between the two populations that play a causal role in personalities; to assume that personality differences would "average out" is not a reasonable assumption.
I don't mean to say that the Norwegian model can't or wouldn't work in the US, but it can't be considered any more than "exploratory" from a US policy perspective.
I don't mean to say that the Norwegian model can't or wouldn't work in the US, but it can't be considered any more than "exploratory" from a US policy perspective.
Maybe not colleges but schools. Someone I know went to prison. He was there for 5 plus years but learned absolutely nothing. Like it's been said, he came out worse than before.
I like the prison to become learning institutions rather that punishment factories. Continuous punishment makes people more resilient in a sense that they will fight and be willing to take more punishment and reject whatever they are being punished for. Eventually, these people get out, it would be nice if they were better than when they went in.
I like the prison to become learning institutions rather that punishment factories. Continuous punishment makes people more resilient in a sense that they will fight and be willing to take more punishment and reject whatever they are being punished for. Eventually, these people get out, it would be nice if they were better than when they went in.
In each state there is probably one prison worth of people who are capable of earning a college degree. They should be put in one place and encouraged to do so.
The rest are mostly shiftless and incorrigible and prison makes them worse people. They should either be released or kept in prison until dead. They should not be “stewed” in prison and then released upon you and me.
The rest are mostly shiftless and incorrigible and prison makes them worse people. They should either be released or kept in prison until dead. They should not be “stewed” in prison and then released upon you and me.
The point of punishment is not a Skinner box to use operant conditioning to bring about desired behavior. People are punished as a clear, unambiguous message that "you did wrong". This is the most humane option because it treats criminals as moral agents with free will who can change and choose what is good. These other "progressive" approaches treat a criminal like an irrational animal or child that must be conditioned. Consequently, the criminal learns their moral intuition is wrong, and to act irrationally and not accept responsibility for his or her own actions. A just penal code with appropriate punishment is the most humane and dignified way to treat criminals.
It seems like giving criminals a free college education is the very definition of a perverse incentive.
You might be surprised to learn this, but incarceration isn't just about punishment. The idea is to rehabilitate inmates so that when they get out of prison they have skills they can employ onto something productive thus avoiding recidivism.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/us/prison-reform-north-dakota...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/us/prison-reform-north-dakota...
You might be surprised to learn this, but incarceration isn't just about punishment.
For some people it is. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "lock him up and throw away the key." For some people, all they care about is that society provides a mechanism to obviate their need to seek retribution personally.
For some people it is. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "lock him up and throw away the key." For some people, all they care about is that society provides a mechanism to obviate their need to seek retribution personally.
This is why a basic level of education that you can use to make a living should be free. It used to be. You used to be able to take shop in high school.
A better way of putting it should be that prisons should educate people to the level of high school or county college, something that should have been available to them but wasn't because of whatever factors. This way they get no handout not available to others and at the same time get a second chance at a life away from crime.
A better way of putting it should be that prisons should educate people to the level of high school or county college, something that should have been available to them but wasn't because of whatever factors. This way they get no handout not available to others and at the same time get a second chance at a life away from crime.
> You used to be able to take shop in high school.
I don't think these sorts of jobs exist any more, or at least not in the quantity that they used to. I do think that job training (tangible, current skills) would be an appropriate replacement.
My funny thought in writing this was that the only way it would happen is if we made Mike Rowe secretary of education.
I don't think these sorts of jobs exist any more, or at least not in the quantity that they used to. I do think that job training (tangible, current skills) would be an appropriate replacement.
My funny thought in writing this was that the only way it would happen is if we made Mike Rowe secretary of education.
So then maybe give everyone and inmates free college education.
What if, hear me out, we make basic education free for everyone, including those in prison?
Its interesting to see this argument come up on HN. How would we control the costs? If tax paid education cannot keep up with the cost of schools should we put a ceiling on professor wages? I believe that would be a horrible idea since the best talent would begin seeking greener pastures. On the other hand, should we just keep increasing taxes instead? The evil of that is a
It decreases in competition for universities to be efficient. The market answers both of these issues, whereas free education does not.
Are professor wages really a substantial factor in increasing university costs? I don't know too much about the subject but I've always attributed it to (1.) the wide availability of student loans making it easy for college tuition to rise faster than is affordable and (2.) the crazy amount of expansion/construction/etc. that universities seem to be doing constantly.
And (3.) total college administration wages increasing.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4738584
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4738584
article makes 0 mention of this (not even one sentence); the only 'proposed delta' is prison education.. critique is fair in this context imho...
which doesn't mean lowering the overall barrier to education is not a good idea and probably would reduce incarceration in the first place...
which doesn't mean lowering the overall barrier to education is not a good idea and probably would reduce incarceration in the first place...
Agree. How much more taxes do YOU pony up? Let’s say, $10k a year. Yes?
$10k/year? Probably not.
A slightly more amount of taxes than I currently pay? Sure; if it's for the betterment and reformation of the worse-off in our society, I'd gladly pay a bit more money.
A slightly more amount of taxes than I currently pay? Sure; if it's for the betterment and reformation of the worse-off in our society, I'd gladly pay a bit more money.
How much?
We already have plenty of perverse incentives with prison, but on the supply side.
Are you seriously suggesting that people would commit crimes to "get a free education"?
Are you seriously suggesting that people would commit crimes to "get a free education"?
There are multiple cases where people commit crimes so they can get free prison medical care, so yes the incentives are out of wack.
The solution to this is to provide free health care outside of prison too. If someone needs something so desperately they're willing to give up their freedom to get it, the richest nation in history ought to be able to provide it for them.
[deleted]
you can find edge cases for nearly anything. Is there any evidence more than a handful of people do this?
Some people will. Some people will do any damn thing. The real question is how many and will it be a significant enough portion to matter. My guess is no.
Are you suggesting that some people won’t?
If someone wants to do one of those victim-less crimes to goto college then why not? A person rationally looking at incentives wouldn't go out of their way to aggravate their stay at prison college.
"middlebrow dismissal" : https://www.google.com/search?q="middlebrow+dismissal"
At a previous job I had to turn people away that had felonies. Some of them just had drug related ones. Felt terrible about it.
If we are going to expect felons to reform and get a job and support themselves using legal means, well we have to make sure they have at least some opportunity at doing so.
Seems we could have thousands MOOCs available on non internet connected computers. These inmates should spend their time reflecting, studying, and working.
Who wants to spent another $35k a year when they get locked up again, instead providing them with near free education that might help them not come back to prison?
If we are going to expect felons to reform and get a job and support themselves using legal means, well we have to make sure they have at least some opportunity at doing so.
Seems we could have thousands MOOCs available on non internet connected computers. These inmates should spend their time reflecting, studying, and working.
Who wants to spent another $35k a year when they get locked up again, instead providing them with near free education that might help them not come back to prison?
This is a bigger problem than it used to be. Back in the day, small businesses didn't have access to background checks, so people with felony convictions could find employment.
These days, a background check is a $10 service on a website. A felony conviction is now pretty much economic ruin. The only loopholes left are working as your own business, like hairdressers that rent space at a salon or day labor for under-the-table cash.
These days, a background check is a $10 service on a website. A felony conviction is now pretty much economic ruin. The only loopholes left are working as your own business, like hairdressers that rent space at a salon or day labor for under-the-table cash.
That’s one narrative.
The other narrative is that for $10 bucks I can protect myself, my family, and my business from terrible people.
Whether they are terrible or “misguided” is up to me to decide, as it is whether to employ them or not.
Again, not everybody in jail deserves humane treatment. There are animals in there. Maybe you have never been on the other end of crime, but there are humans who are animals.
The other narrative is that for $10 bucks I can protect myself, my family, and my business from terrible people.
Whether they are terrible or “misguided” is up to me to decide, as it is whether to employ them or not.
Again, not everybody in jail deserves humane treatment. There are animals in there. Maybe you have never been on the other end of crime, but there are humans who are animals.
I don't think anyone's really arguing that records of violent criminals should be hidden, turning all hiring decisions into games of roulette.
I'm guessing that you're capable of sensible, fair evaluation of a criminal record, and making an accordingly sensible hiring decision.
The problem is that most others are not. Most companies have a blanket ban on felons, even for things that should not be crimes. Remember that it used to be illegal to possess alcohol, or to marry someone outside your race, for example.
Thus, if you value the information that allows you to filter genuinely dangerous individuals from your life and business, then it seems that it would be in your interest for the system that provides such information be robust against injustice and abuse.
I'm guessing that you're capable of sensible, fair evaluation of a criminal record, and making an accordingly sensible hiring decision.
The problem is that most others are not. Most companies have a blanket ban on felons, even for things that should not be crimes. Remember that it used to be illegal to possess alcohol, or to marry someone outside your race, for example.
Thus, if you value the information that allows you to filter genuinely dangerous individuals from your life and business, then it seems that it would be in your interest for the system that provides such information be robust against injustice and abuse.
Thank you for your very reasonable answer.
Was with you up until ”not everybody in jail deserves humane treatment”
So the fifty year old that got picked up for weed in 1982 doesn't deserve to find anything more than the most menial job?
The parent didn't actually say that.
They said that it should be up to them, as to whether they hire that person after a background check eg reveals something.
There are very obvious cases where it makes a lot of sense to screen people based on background checks (eg a daycare or school). Further to that point, every business operator is different and has different beliefs. One operator might be ok with hiring a previously convicted rapist. The next business owner might be a woman who was raped in the past and has a very different view on that for good reason.
They said that it should be up to them, as to whether they hire that person after a background check eg reveals something.
There are very obvious cases where it makes a lot of sense to screen people based on background checks (eg a daycare or school). Further to that point, every business operator is different and has different beliefs. One operator might be ok with hiring a previously convicted rapist. The next business owner might be a woman who was raped in the past and has a very different view on that for good reason.
Whether the inmate deserves or not whatever you think she deserves is irrelevant to the issue that I am the one supposed to provide such thing. Why do I have to be the provider? Why don’t YOU do that if you so much believe in that? Why don’t YOU start a business and hire all felons?
I give my kids unlimited 24/7, AYCL (All You Can Learn) screen time on their own Chromebooks that are URL locked down to only khanacademy.org. They learn about math, business econ, history, etc.
This really would be a game changer for these individuals and the costs could be marginal given a Chromebook is <$150 and Khan Academy could provide bulk discounts.
Latest on Khan Academy: https://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_let_s_teach_for_mastery_n...
There seem to be trials of the offline Version of Khan Academy (KALite) at a correctional facility in Idaho and Los Angelos: https://www.khanacademy.org/resources/out-of-school-time-pro...
https://learningequality.org/ka-lite/
This really would be a game changer for these individuals and the costs could be marginal given a Chromebook is <$150 and Khan Academy could provide bulk discounts.
Latest on Khan Academy: https://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_let_s_teach_for_mastery_n...
There seem to be trials of the offline Version of Khan Academy (KALite) at a correctional facility in Idaho and Los Angelos: https://www.khanacademy.org/resources/out-of-school-time-pro...
https://learningequality.org/ka-lite/
Why not add Codecademy and Wikipedia to the whitelist?
Has anyone published a whitelist of educational web sites? Wouldn't be a bad idea. Could make it a collaborative effort, too, by versioning it with GitHub and accepting online pull requests with public discussion.
Has anyone published a whitelist of educational web sites? Wouldn't be a bad idea. Could make it a collaborative effort, too, by versioning it with GitHub and accepting online pull requests with public discussion.
Good point - should have thought about coding when posting to HN. It does look like someone is leading the effort already. The key would be to keep the overhead low and encourage the participants to mentor each other somehow.
https://ideas.ted.com/why-im-teaching-prisoners-to-code/ https://thelastmile.org
https://ideas.ted.com/why-im-teaching-prisoners-to-code/ https://thelastmile.org
> Who wants to spent another $35k a year when they get locked up again?
The prison-industrial complex and their political pawns.
The prison-industrial complex and their political pawns.
Do you have any evidence to support that nuanced and well-considered opinion?
Not sure how anyone informed can question whether this is a thing, so I wonder kind of strange bar you may have for evidence. But this issue is well covered (see below for just a few examples), and I've never heard intelligent rebuttals. I would say at this point, the onus is on you to show why this is not how it works.
- https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/c...
- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/prison-priva...
- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-pri...
- https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/c...
- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/prison-priva...
- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-pri...
I feel like you didn't adequately cover the "political pawns" phrase.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...
There's a rebuttal for everything if you look.
According to the ACLU 7% of state prisoners and 18% of federal prisoners are in for-profit prisons[1]. Federal prisoners make up less than 20% of the total prisoners. So a minority of a minority are prisoners of the federal "prison-industrial complex".
I of course also hear the rebuttal that public prisons are supplied by private companies. Which is of course true. The government does not grow food or produce security cameras. Perhaps we'll accuse Georgia Pacific of being a beneficiary of the "collegiate-industrial complex" as well as the "prison-industrial complex" because they supply paper products.
I believe our prisons are broken. I believe our prisons are cruel and immoral. But I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy of private interests locking people away for the sake of profit. Nor do I believe that those interests influence our politicians in any meaningful way.
Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy? Or is it much more likely that our representatives believe private prisons could, should, or do work?
1. https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/privatization...
According to the ACLU 7% of state prisoners and 18% of federal prisoners are in for-profit prisons[1]. Federal prisoners make up less than 20% of the total prisoners. So a minority of a minority are prisoners of the federal "prison-industrial complex".
I of course also hear the rebuttal that public prisons are supplied by private companies. Which is of course true. The government does not grow food or produce security cameras. Perhaps we'll accuse Georgia Pacific of being a beneficiary of the "collegiate-industrial complex" as well as the "prison-industrial complex" because they supply paper products.
I believe our prisons are broken. I believe our prisons are cruel and immoral. But I do not believe there is a vast conspiracy of private interests locking people away for the sake of profit. Nor do I believe that those interests influence our politicians in any meaningful way.
Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy? Or is it much more likely that our representatives believe private prisons could, should, or do work?
1. https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/privatization...
The "complex" isn't just of private companies. In California, for example, the prison officers' union (California Correctional Peace Officers Association or CCPOA) is a major political power, and advocates for harsher sentencing rules. This article describes some of its political history [1], starting in the 1990s.
> "In 1994, it was a major force behind the passage of Proposition 184, California’s “Three Strikes” initiative. In the same election cycle, it spent a record amount on former Gov. Pete Wilson’s successful reelection campaign…"
Since 2011 it seems to have reduced its spending on elections. However, this article [2] says that in the 2016 election they upped their spending again, and suggests that they had been splitting "members’ contributions among a half-dozen or more PACS" to somewhat obscure their advocacy.
[1] http://capitolweekly.net/ccpoa-transition-powerful-low-profi...
[2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-wor...
> "In 1994, it was a major force behind the passage of Proposition 184, California’s “Three Strikes” initiative. In the same election cycle, it spent a record amount on former Gov. Pete Wilson’s successful reelection campaign…"
Since 2011 it seems to have reduced its spending on elections. However, this article [2] says that in the 2016 election they upped their spending again, and suggests that they had been splitting "members’ contributions among a half-dozen or more PACS" to somewhat obscure their advocacy.
[1] http://capitolweekly.net/ccpoa-transition-powerful-low-profi...
[2] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-wor...
>Perhaps we'll accuse Georgia Pacific of being a beneficiary of the "collegiate-industrial complex" as well as the "prison-industrial complex" because they supply paper products.
If and when they donate to candidates for harsher sentences, then yes, they are.
Most businesses and people that work for said businesses tend to vote in a matter that leads to their continued employment.
>Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy?
Absolutely. You're thinking of the wrong economy. The economy that matters the most to a politician is the one that gives the most donations during the election.
If and when they donate to candidates for harsher sentences, then yes, they are.
Most businesses and people that work for said businesses tend to vote in a matter that leads to their continued employment.
>Ask yourself, is it likely that our politicians are completely beholden to an industry that makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent of our economy?
Absolutely. You're thinking of the wrong economy. The economy that matters the most to a politician is the one that gives the most donations during the election.
I think it is highly likely that individual politicians accept lobby money from the private prison industry, which influences their votes on any issue impacting this "paying for their interests" constituent. Just repeat this, not very many times, and the nation's voting balance sways in their direction. Realize that each politician has a net of obligations, and by directly impacting a few's behavior, many other politicians are swayed due to their obligations towards their peers accepting lobby incentives. Speaking from experience, I worked very effectively as a lobbyist, until my ethics would not longer allow it.
Part of the problem is it is legal to discriminate against felons and so many paths to success in our society are closed to them. A person with a felony is denied the pursuit of happiness.
Why is it a problem?
Wouldn’t you want to know the background of a person before hiring a nanny for your child?
Now change nanny to employee and child to business.
Wouldn’t you want to know the background of a person before hiring a nanny for your child?
Now change nanny to employee and child to business.
Wait...are we talking an employee in the sense of a CEO, or in the sense of some lower-level position? First, my child is more precious than my business. Second, a nanny has much more direct influence over a child than an employee does over a business (except in the case of particularly-powerful employees, of course). Third (and ignored by the person you responded too, as well), not all felonies are created equal.
Does it matter? What if it is a low level position and the person stabs someone at the first disagreement? Why do I have to take that risk?
> Does it matter?
Stupid question. Yes.
> What if it is a low level position and the person stabs someone at the first disagreement?
Why do you assume that "felon = violent"?
> Why do I have to take that risk?
Every hire is a risk. Running a business is a risk in the first place. If you're risk-averse, you probably aren't running a business, anyhow. So, why do you take that risk? Presumably because you've concluded during the interview that they can perform the task that you're hiring for better than the other candidates. If they can't, then it's a moot point anyhow, isn't it?
Stupid question. Yes.
> What if it is a low level position and the person stabs someone at the first disagreement?
Why do you assume that "felon = violent"?
> Why do I have to take that risk?
Every hire is a risk. Running a business is a risk in the first place. If you're risk-averse, you probably aren't running a business, anyhow. So, why do you take that risk? Presumably because you've concluded during the interview that they can perform the task that you're hiring for better than the other candidates. If they can't, then it's a moot point anyhow, isn't it?
Why is the question stupid?
I can assume whatever I want if I am doing the hiring right? After all, it’s my money which is being risked. Simply put, a business owner can hire whoever they want in practice.
Every hire is a risk, but hiring a felon is an increased risk. It is possible that it is an increased reward too, but with so many available candidates, why bother?
I can assume whatever I want if I am doing the hiring right? After all, it’s my money which is being risked. Simply put, a business owner can hire whoever they want in practice.
Every hire is a risk, but hiring a felon is an increased risk. It is possible that it is an increased reward too, but with so many available candidates, why bother?
In our current prison system, people go in broken and come out worse. As a practical consideration, and taken in the short view, discrimination against felons makes sense.
If we had a legal system that resulted in prisoners improving themselves during incarceration, it'd be much harder to justify that. But if a business has a choice between two candidate employees, one who's been in prison for a couple of years, and another who hasn't, then (all else being equal), which candidate do you think they're more likely to hire?
Taken another way, how would you improve prison to make prison time seem like less of a risk factor, or even as a positive thing?
If we had a legal system that resulted in prisoners improving themselves during incarceration, it'd be much harder to justify that. But if a business has a choice between two candidate employees, one who's been in prison for a couple of years, and another who hasn't, then (all else being equal), which candidate do you think they're more likely to hire?
Taken another way, how would you improve prison to make prison time seem like less of a risk factor, or even as a positive thing?
This reads a lot like Pearson Education & such just want an in on the wildly profitable private prison industry
What's the only boondoggle bigger than Higher Education in the United States?
I've not seen Pearson sniffing around the healthcare market.
Pearson does a lot of clinical assessments
If it cuts our cost by reducing recidivism, and reduces misery by reducing recidivism. then they are well entitles to the piece of the the budget pie they will earn.
This is a smart point; we should be careful to not just turn this into another corrupt slush fund. Education for prisoners should have the same standards as education for any other American, full stop.
> learning gives us a different understanding of ourselves and the world around us, and it provides us tools to become more empathetic
This is the key. I really don't believe punishment works. I'm on mobile at the moment so it would be tedious to find sources, but I will do so later when I have time.
But a great example for this is with parenting. A child doesn't learn why changing their behavior is beneficial to them outside the context of punishment if punishment is used. They simply learn to hide the behavior, because it is the punishment itself that provides the negative feedback. Showing the child why a specific behavior is detrimental to them gives them negative feedback about the behavior itself. One of the best ways to show this to children is by appealing to their empathy. "Would you like it if X did that to you?" That's a simplistic example.
But in education, the examples are numerous. And for reasons that may be obvious prisoners won't necessarily be in education for say, a math degree, but they would be taking courses in history and philosophy, and the like. Humanities courses give the perspective that crime-affected communities often lack. And they give hope and possibility by exploring all the realms of human thought
Incarceration is inhumane. It does not work. How can someone possibly have hope for changing their behavior when they are treated like an animal in a cage? it does nothing for reinforcement since their freedom after a served sentence is likely to entail returning to a broken community.
This is the key. I really don't believe punishment works. I'm on mobile at the moment so it would be tedious to find sources, but I will do so later when I have time.
But a great example for this is with parenting. A child doesn't learn why changing their behavior is beneficial to them outside the context of punishment if punishment is used. They simply learn to hide the behavior, because it is the punishment itself that provides the negative feedback. Showing the child why a specific behavior is detrimental to them gives them negative feedback about the behavior itself. One of the best ways to show this to children is by appealing to their empathy. "Would you like it if X did that to you?" That's a simplistic example.
But in education, the examples are numerous. And for reasons that may be obvious prisoners won't necessarily be in education for say, a math degree, but they would be taking courses in history and philosophy, and the like. Humanities courses give the perspective that crime-affected communities often lack. And they give hope and possibility by exploring all the realms of human thought
Incarceration is inhumane. It does not work. How can someone possibly have hope for changing their behavior when they are treated like an animal in a cage? it does nothing for reinforcement since their freedom after a served sentence is likely to entail returning to a broken community.
Oliver Wendell Holmes discusses the purpose of incarceration in The Common Law [1], and I've found it to be insightful when thinking about what the purpose of prison is.
> It has been thought that the purpose of punishment is to reform the criminal; that it is to deter the criminal and others from committing similar crimes; and that it is retribution. Few would now maintain that the first of these purposes was the only one. If it were, every prisoner should be released as soon as it appears clear that he will never repeat his offence, and if he is incurable he should not be punished at all. Of course it would be hard to reconcile the punishment of death with this doctrine.
> The main struggle lies between the other two. On the one side is the notion that there is a mystic bond between wrong and punishment; on the other, that the infliction of pain is only a means to an end. Hegel, one of the great expounders of the former view, puts it, in his quasi mathematical form, that, wrong being the negation of right, punishment is the negation of that negation, or retribution. Thus the punishment must be equal, in the sense of proportionate to the crime, because its only function is to destroy it. Others, without this logical apparatus, are content to rely upon a felt necessity that suffering should follow wrong-doing.
It goes on from here in great depth. Recidivism as a metric of the effectiveness of prison is not misguided, per se, but is not sufficient. The deterrent effect of imprisonment is hard to measure; the punishment aspect is impossible to measure.
I agree, on a purely subjective basis, that we have tilted way too far in the direction of retribution and deterrence, to the point where we have maxed effectiveness as a deterrent, and have more than satisfied the "blood lust" of the victims of the crime (that is, reducing vigilantism and private retribution to a non-factor).
[1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2449/2449-h/2449-h.htm#link2H...
> It has been thought that the purpose of punishment is to reform the criminal; that it is to deter the criminal and others from committing similar crimes; and that it is retribution. Few would now maintain that the first of these purposes was the only one. If it were, every prisoner should be released as soon as it appears clear that he will never repeat his offence, and if he is incurable he should not be punished at all. Of course it would be hard to reconcile the punishment of death with this doctrine.
> The main struggle lies between the other two. On the one side is the notion that there is a mystic bond between wrong and punishment; on the other, that the infliction of pain is only a means to an end. Hegel, one of the great expounders of the former view, puts it, in his quasi mathematical form, that, wrong being the negation of right, punishment is the negation of that negation, or retribution. Thus the punishment must be equal, in the sense of proportionate to the crime, because its only function is to destroy it. Others, without this logical apparatus, are content to rely upon a felt necessity that suffering should follow wrong-doing.
It goes on from here in great depth. Recidivism as a metric of the effectiveness of prison is not misguided, per se, but is not sufficient. The deterrent effect of imprisonment is hard to measure; the punishment aspect is impossible to measure.
I agree, on a purely subjective basis, that we have tilted way too far in the direction of retribution and deterrence, to the point where we have maxed effectiveness as a deterrent, and have more than satisfied the "blood lust" of the victims of the crime (that is, reducing vigilantism and private retribution to a non-factor).
[1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2449/2449-h/2449-h.htm#link2H...
I am all for teaching empathy. I am all for teaching people to behave well because it is the right thing to do (not because of fear of punishment).
But -- some percent of the population are predatory, or have the potential to become predatory. They have come to believe that the strong (them) have the right to take from the weak. They steal, rob, rape, murder because it benefits themselves to do so. And if you take away any prospect of bad consequences, more people will become predators.
I also think our current prison system is a pretty awful. But if you take it away, what would you do with criminals instead? What do you do with the 20 year old man who robs someone at gunpoint, or drags a woman into an alley and rapes her? I think there are alternatives out there, but IMO they must involve punishment (to deter others) and containment/supervision (to prevent the criminal from preying upon others again). My own preference for punishing something like armed robbery would be something like a sentence of 10 years of doing farm labor followed by a three year gradual reintegration into society.
But -- some percent of the population are predatory, or have the potential to become predatory. They have come to believe that the strong (them) have the right to take from the weak. They steal, rob, rape, murder because it benefits themselves to do so. And if you take away any prospect of bad consequences, more people will become predators.
I also think our current prison system is a pretty awful. But if you take it away, what would you do with criminals instead? What do you do with the 20 year old man who robs someone at gunpoint, or drags a woman into an alley and rapes her? I think there are alternatives out there, but IMO they must involve punishment (to deter others) and containment/supervision (to prevent the criminal from preying upon others again). My own preference for punishing something like armed robbery would be something like a sentence of 10 years of doing farm labor followed by a three year gradual reintegration into society.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that punishing people for crimes is barbaric. What we should do is incarcerate them for the purpose of preventing them from harming others further. (Simple withdrawal of freedom and isolation from society is enough punishment and deterrence. Heaping punishment on top of that is pointless and barbarous.)
What the justice systems of most nations is missing is the idea of banishment and exile. In city states you were rarely imprisoned - that was very expensive to do, and society had to then keep you alive while you were non-productive. You were often enslaved, to work off your debt to the society. You were often beaten, but not maimed, because you were less useful crippled. If your (perceived) crime was severe enough, you were often killed.
But then there was exile, where you may not warrant your own death or loss of freedom, but the society just doesn't want you around any more. This would apply to the robber barons of modern times, the scam artists and those that prey on the weak. But we simply don't have the ability to banish such people - there is no where to send them, you cannot just put them outside your borders and say never come back. Even without any intent for retribution prison is a necessary construct to isolate those too dangerous to participate in society from it, but some criminals aren't actually physically dangerous. They are only dangerous with power, authority, or an audience. You would traditionally just want to exile those kinds of criminals after taking their possessions to recompense their victims, but we have no real way to do that anymore. Even if you had somewhere to put many of these criminals, the world is too interconnected to stop them from committing more crimes against your citizens abroad. Its often hard to completely strip someone of their accrued power.
So either they walk free with paltry fines or maybe rarely destitution, or they end up in prison like Madoff when they are so grossly criminal you have to do something. The breadth of response to crime today is to take possessions, take freedom, or in barbaric countries like the US take life. The option to take citizenship or residency is no longer an option, which is a shame, because there are a lot of crimes that would be well suited for it.
But then there was exile, where you may not warrant your own death or loss of freedom, but the society just doesn't want you around any more. This would apply to the robber barons of modern times, the scam artists and those that prey on the weak. But we simply don't have the ability to banish such people - there is no where to send them, you cannot just put them outside your borders and say never come back. Even without any intent for retribution prison is a necessary construct to isolate those too dangerous to participate in society from it, but some criminals aren't actually physically dangerous. They are only dangerous with power, authority, or an audience. You would traditionally just want to exile those kinds of criminals after taking their possessions to recompense their victims, but we have no real way to do that anymore. Even if you had somewhere to put many of these criminals, the world is too interconnected to stop them from committing more crimes against your citizens abroad. Its often hard to completely strip someone of their accrued power.
So either they walk free with paltry fines or maybe rarely destitution, or they end up in prison like Madoff when they are so grossly criminal you have to do something. The breadth of response to crime today is to take possessions, take freedom, or in barbaric countries like the US take life. The option to take citizenship or residency is no longer an option, which is a shame, because there are a lot of crimes that would be well suited for it.
What about someone who commits auto theft? Seems like isolation is actually overkill and more inhumane than other forms of punishment. 24/7 GPS monitoring should suffice to make sure he doesn't steal again. But you still need punishment, else the calculus for the would be criminal is heads I get a car, tails, I get caught, but nothing bad happens to me.
Isolation is a punishment though isn't it?
Isolation from society, yes. But that's to protect society, its purpose is not punishment.
Basically, I like the Norwegian approach.
Basically, I like the Norwegian approach.
I keep hearing that it is because 'humans are social animals' and all that but is it really for people with antisocial behaviour?
It does really really bad things to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glS0ApOAaCw
If it were non-optional, I think so.
Then just lie, cheat, steal and kill until one reaches their goal. In a way, it seems clear cut punishment is more humane than medicating or isolating a criminal out of existence. Punishment tells the criminal "this is wrong" in clear terms. Anything else communicates "you are an animal without moral agency and we treat you as such." Consequently, unpunished criminals will act as animals instead of rational beings.
>>But -- some percent of the population are predatory, or have the potential to become predatory. They have come to believe that the strong (them) have the right to take from the weak. They steal, rob, rape, murder because it benefits themselves to do so. And if you take away any prospect of bad consequences, more people will become predators.
And if you leave the consequences.... they become CEO's.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-...
And if you leave the consequences.... they become CEO's.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-...
>And if you take away any prospect of bad consequences, more people will become predators.
This premise is false. People have gotten along without the present distorted system of mass incarceration, not having a system of punishment doesn't itself produce predators. Social norms are quite powerful by themselves. The present system needs to be wholesale re-evaluated for its fairness and effectiveness at producing people that don't reoffend.
At the moment it exists, structurally, to create a labor force that can be forced to work for free, effectively continuing the practice of slavery in this country. This systematized role disproportionately affects communities of color, unsurprisingly, in line with the historical victims of the practice.
>What do you do with the 20 year old man who robs someone at gunpoint, or drags a woman into an alley and rapes her?
Well, at the moment we let them out after 90 days if they're on the swim team at Stanford.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/us/brock-turner-release-jail/...
This premise is false. People have gotten along without the present distorted system of mass incarceration, not having a system of punishment doesn't itself produce predators. Social norms are quite powerful by themselves. The present system needs to be wholesale re-evaluated for its fairness and effectiveness at producing people that don't reoffend.
At the moment it exists, structurally, to create a labor force that can be forced to work for free, effectively continuing the practice of slavery in this country. This systematized role disproportionately affects communities of color, unsurprisingly, in line with the historical victims of the practice.
>What do you do with the 20 year old man who robs someone at gunpoint, or drags a woman into an alley and rapes her?
Well, at the moment we let them out after 90 days if they're on the swim team at Stanford.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/us/brock-turner-release-jail/...
We have always had systems of punishment and retribution. In the past if you killed or raped someone, the clan and family members would try to hunt you down and kill you. Basically, the state took over the function of punishing wrongdoers. What happens when the state stops punishing people is not that punishment stops, but that you end up with vigilantism. For example in Detroit https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/14/us/michigan-suspect-beaten/in...
> We have always had systems of punishment and retribution.
We have, but the system that the article is critiquing is, in fact, the one we presently live under.
You can, in fact, punish people without prisons. You said it yourself, we've done it with other means in the past. The article addresses incarceration specifically.
The whole article intends to convince us that incarceration should not be punitive, but restorative.
You directly missed my point. The carceral threat is only one stick, and judging by recidivism data, not one that is working particularly well. Perhaps we should examine another set of sticks, or even maybe, perhaps consider another set of carrots. Dismantling the prison industrial complex will not itself create predators, which is the claim I responded to.
We have, but the system that the article is critiquing is, in fact, the one we presently live under.
You can, in fact, punish people without prisons. You said it yourself, we've done it with other means in the past. The article addresses incarceration specifically.
The whole article intends to convince us that incarceration should not be punitive, but restorative.
You directly missed my point. The carceral threat is only one stick, and judging by recidivism data, not one that is working particularly well. Perhaps we should examine another set of sticks, or even maybe, perhaps consider another set of carrots. Dismantling the prison industrial complex will not itself create predators, which is the claim I responded to.
> People have gotten along without the present distorted system of mass incarceration
while the incarceration system has limits when it comes to rehabilitation, this part of the post is extremely mistaken.
just because it was slavery and banishment aren't equivalent to incarceration doesn't mean there was no system of punishment - for as far as myth can track our oral history crime and punishment was always present in some form or another as a value and a condition for the existence of social groups larger than tribes
crime and punishment was codified as social values in laws, tradition and religion precisely because not having them caused more strife than having them, a point that is driven over and over again with the stigma the same myth gives to personal vendetta as opposed to systematic punishment.
while the incarceration system has limits when it comes to rehabilitation, this part of the post is extremely mistaken.
just because it was slavery and banishment aren't equivalent to incarceration doesn't mean there was no system of punishment - for as far as myth can track our oral history crime and punishment was always present in some form or another as a value and a condition for the existence of social groups larger than tribes
crime and punishment was codified as social values in laws, tradition and religion precisely because not having them caused more strife than having them, a point that is driven over and over again with the stigma the same myth gives to personal vendetta as opposed to systematic punishment.
It's cheap to point out the problems of a system with making a case for something that might work better. Answer my question: What should be done about the 20 year old man who robs someone at gunpoint or drags a woman into an alley and rapes her?
[deleted]
> How can someone possibly have hope for changing their behavior when they are treated like an animal in a cage?
If I were treated like an animal in a cage, I sure as hell would not like to go back to prison again.
If I were treated like an animal in a cage, I sure as hell would not like to go back to prison again.
No ex-convict wants to return to prison. However, they've just been put in a position where all of their peers are also criminals, and getting a well-compensated job after release is incredibly difficult, especially if they do not already have specialized skills and education. So it's very easy to fall back into bad habits, especially if that's how they were paying the bills.
Destigmatizing a criminal record when it comes to hiring (or anything else for that matter) would help a lot, but the government doesn't seem too interested in helping out with that (though I hope the current low unemployment rates help in this regard). Prison education programs would also help. If the government is going to lock people in little boxes with other criminals, stigmatize them for the rest of their lives, and seriously contend the point of it is to reduce recidivism, they need to be doing this sort of education at the very least.
Destigmatizing a criminal record when it comes to hiring (or anything else for that matter) would help a lot, but the government doesn't seem too interested in helping out with that (though I hope the current low unemployment rates help in this regard). Prison education programs would also help. If the government is going to lock people in little boxes with other criminals, stigmatize them for the rest of their lives, and seriously contend the point of it is to reduce recidivism, they need to be doing this sort of education at the very least.
> No ex-convict wants to return to prison.
Some do. Perhaps the most famous example is Charles Manson who said he'd been in prison for so much of his life that it was his home.
Sorry I forget the source, but one longtime prisoner said that after release, it's like he was still in jail, because after being imprisoned, the real prison is in your mind.
Incarceration becomes a mindset.
With three strikes laws locking people up for life for relatively minor third offences, this should give us pause.
Putting these examples aside, there is a lot of evidence that punishment simply does not work.
For example many states have the death penalty for capital crimes, sometimes by the medievally brutal electric chair[1], and still people continue to commit murder.
[1] Like burning at the stake with all the modern conveniences.
Some do. Perhaps the most famous example is Charles Manson who said he'd been in prison for so much of his life that it was his home.
Sorry I forget the source, but one longtime prisoner said that after release, it's like he was still in jail, because after being imprisoned, the real prison is in your mind.
Incarceration becomes a mindset.
With three strikes laws locking people up for life for relatively minor third offences, this should give us pause.
Putting these examples aside, there is a lot of evidence that punishment simply does not work.
For example many states have the death penalty for capital crimes, sometimes by the medievally brutal electric chair[1], and still people continue to commit murder.
[1] Like burning at the stake with all the modern conveniences.
I think Charles Manson might be a bit of a statistical outlier.
The whole point of prison is that of confining people to somewhere that they would not willingly remain confined to.
Right, but I'm assuming you live in a decent community with decent support. You live in a decent house with a decent job. This is also the reason you are likely not to commit a significant crime-- there is no need. There is no power to be gained, no money that you couldn't obtain legally, no significant anger or behavioral patterns.
But the opposite is true for most re offending criminals. Their freedom from the cage thrusts them into another cage. There is no point in not committing crime, especially if you are part of a gang. The gang affords you power and a kind of familial bond to other people.
But the opposite is true for most re offending criminals. Their freedom from the cage thrusts them into another cage. There is no point in not committing crime, especially if you are part of a gang. The gang affords you power and a kind of familial bond to other people.
This is so true. I've heard friends who've been in the workhouse talk about it, how it was a free place to stay and you didn't have to worry about where your meals were coming from. It's not that they "wanted" to be there, but they preferred it over indefinite jail.
If you're treated like an animal in a cage, odds are you won't have the skills to survive in society when you're eventually released, and end up falling back into old habits.
Watch this and see what you think:
https://www.netflix.com/title/80217333
Some of it goes against your instincts, but the results speak for themselves.
Some of it goes against your instincts, but the results speak for themselves.
Punitive justice sounds great in theory but in practice it has not prevented crime from occurring and reoccurring.
There is a lot of research on punishment showing that it only works to increase the motivation to not get caught. It in no way influences the reasons behind criminal/illegal behavior. Otherwise no one would ever get a second parking or speeding ticket or a dui.
Having prisons be run as colleges is better for society than having prisons run as plantations.
In 2018, high quality online education is close to free. Coursera, edux, udemy are just some of the examples.
There is a lot of research on punishment showing that it only works to increase the motivation to not get caught. It in no way influences the reasons behind criminal/illegal behavior. Otherwise no one would ever get a second parking or speeding ticket or a dui.
Having prisons be run as colleges is better for society than having prisons run as plantations.
In 2018, high quality online education is close to free. Coursera, edux, udemy are just some of the examples.
People don't want to go to prison the first time, either.
Intuitively I agree that most convicts do not want to return to prison again (though I am certain you can find examples if you tried).
But I believe the argument is that the way prison/punishment is structured right now makes reintegration into society difficult, and as a result is ineffective.
But I believe the argument is that the way prison/punishment is structured right now makes reintegration into society difficult, and as a result is ineffective.
When the choice is to commit crimes or live in hellish poverty, the choice becomes easier. Going to prison just means you get free food and board for a while. Sure, it's awful. But your only shot getting a better life is crime....
> But your only shot getting a better life is crime....
that is true for 0% of Americans in prison
that is true for 0% of Americans in prison
Yea, creating this environment for these people is just a start, but it goes into a positive direction. I agree that punishing these people doesn't do any good in the long term.
Education could be too late for some people. Big countries have spent some money and many years on negotiating with a single person--the leader of North Korea. I'm afraid that's the largest investment in this world to teach some one for something good. The resource (time, money, love) for people who are making mistakes are so limited compared with what is actually needed to make effective changes to them. The reality is so cruel. I believe the effort on school education is still be most effective one. Better be home-schooling if one is really capable. Kids are the hope.
Isn't part of the punishment the therapeutic aspect for victims? Our justice and prison system is broken in many ways, but it has always sat kind of wrong with me that someone could steal from, hurt, or kill me or someone I love and then go to a rehab camp to learn why what they did was wrong.
I definitely try to be progressive about it, and for victimless crimes 100% rehabilitation and learning, but If a loved one or me was a victim, it would be difficult to watch them taking humanities courses.
I definitely try to be progressive about it, and for victimless crimes 100% rehabilitation and learning, but If a loved one or me was a victim, it would be difficult to watch them taking humanities courses.
The system is flawed, it will always be flawed. some innocent people will be imprisoned, some guilty people will never be caught. Since its impossible to change this i think the system should be designed with this in mind;
what we would like to do with the 'guilty'? what would sit right? this is not the question we should be asking about a flawed system as we can never be sure who is guilty.
Instead take a look at someone innocent, your daughter, wife, your son; And ask what you would be willing to put them through if it was their turn to be the innocent people imprisoned? i'm sure the list would be short, the necessities, remove; freedom? ok. But access to education? entertainment? social interaction? protection? What would sit right with you knowing that your loved ones risked this existence every day?
This is the reason i hate the death penalty, forced labour, solitary, and all inhuman, cruel and dehumanizing things that our prisons employ.. These things don't protect us, they exist only due to vindictiveness; And they ignore the inevitability of mistakes.
what we would like to do with the 'guilty'? what would sit right? this is not the question we should be asking about a flawed system as we can never be sure who is guilty.
Instead take a look at someone innocent, your daughter, wife, your son; And ask what you would be willing to put them through if it was their turn to be the innocent people imprisoned? i'm sure the list would be short, the necessities, remove; freedom? ok. But access to education? entertainment? social interaction? protection? What would sit right with you knowing that your loved ones risked this existence every day?
This is the reason i hate the death penalty, forced labour, solitary, and all inhuman, cruel and dehumanizing things that our prisons employ.. These things don't protect us, they exist only due to vindictiveness; And they ignore the inevitability of mistakes.
The more we learn about human psychology the harder it is to take a criminal and say "this is a bad person who is wholly responsible for their behavior and deserves what they get".
For a vast, huge majority of victims of crime by far and way the most valuable thing to them is not retribution or vindication, it is their own attempt to regain safety. The knowledge their assailant is no longer able to hurt others is so much more substantial on average to victims than the knowledge their assailant is suffering or dead.
Retribution is a tart feeling. Its empty. It gives you a moment of animal hormone rush before you realize it isn't gaining anyone anything. Its just part of being angry.
Yes, of course if you were involved in a crime, or someone you loved, you would want retribution. We all would feel that way. Our brains are wired too strongly to react in that manner. Its a survival instinct, one of those deeply rooted behaviors you cannot undo like the gag or drowning reflexes. That is why it is so valuable that those of us not under its influence recognize it doesn't serve a practical purpose in civilized society. You retaliate to save your life from an immediate threat, and you use that instinctual bloodlust to insure the threat is neutralized. You don't channel it to use state institutions to harm people long term to appease your animal brain in the same way you don't guzzle cheese wiz all the time because your brain keeps telling you to eat so long as food is available. We have that instinct, both to eat endlessly and be sedentary and to seek retribution. Neither are rational, and both require discipline to restrain, not glorify.
For a vast, huge majority of victims of crime by far and way the most valuable thing to them is not retribution or vindication, it is their own attempt to regain safety. The knowledge their assailant is no longer able to hurt others is so much more substantial on average to victims than the knowledge their assailant is suffering or dead.
Retribution is a tart feeling. Its empty. It gives you a moment of animal hormone rush before you realize it isn't gaining anyone anything. Its just part of being angry.
Yes, of course if you were involved in a crime, or someone you loved, you would want retribution. We all would feel that way. Our brains are wired too strongly to react in that manner. Its a survival instinct, one of those deeply rooted behaviors you cannot undo like the gag or drowning reflexes. That is why it is so valuable that those of us not under its influence recognize it doesn't serve a practical purpose in civilized society. You retaliate to save your life from an immediate threat, and you use that instinctual bloodlust to insure the threat is neutralized. You don't channel it to use state institutions to harm people long term to appease your animal brain in the same way you don't guzzle cheese wiz all the time because your brain keeps telling you to eat so long as food is available. We have that instinct, both to eat endlessly and be sedentary and to seek retribution. Neither are rational, and both require discipline to restrain, not glorify.
It's symbolic of student loan debt
This provides something for free to an inmate. The philosophy of those like Sheriff Arpaio and those politically aligned with him run counter to this. Where inmates are limited in water while living in tents outside in order to save money. Until we can extricate the culture of cruel and unusual punishment in the name of greed by those like Joe Arpaio, we'll not overcome the political hurdles of doing something nice for an inmate to reduce recidivism.
> Imagine if prisons looked like the grounds of universities. Instead of languishing in cells, incarcerated people sat in classrooms and learned about climate science or poetry — just like college students.
In general I think this is a great idea, but for God's sake, teach them useful things that will help them get a job once the state lets them out of their cage, not crunchy liberal arts pablum and highly theoretical science that will get them nowhere career-wise. I say this as someone who made the mistake of going into debt to get a degree in English literature.
In general I think this is a great idea, but for God's sake, teach them useful things that will help them get a job once the state lets them out of their cage, not crunchy liberal arts pablum and highly theoretical science that will get them nowhere career-wise. I say this as someone who made the mistake of going into debt to get a degree in English literature.
I do think there should be some English studies, but it should not be a primary focus. Reading books is a great way to help build empathy, and understanding how to read _well_ is a valuable tool in its own right.
Okay, yes, to be clear, I don't disagree with you here. Certainly literature and especially grammar classes can be a part of this. But if the government is going to steal my money to pay for locking people in little boxes, but then allows them to get degrees in poetry and climatology instead of veterinary medicine or computer science, well, that's doubly insulting to me.
> get a job once the state lets them out of their cage
Gross.
The notion that colleges are supposed to be factories to create workers for jobs that probably won't exist by the time they graduate is bad enough; turning prisons into this is nothing short of a conflict of economic interest.
Learning theoretical science, poetry, dance, music, etc. sounds very plausibly helpful for people who are incarcerated.
Gross.
The notion that colleges are supposed to be factories to create workers for jobs that probably won't exist by the time they graduate is bad enough; turning prisons into this is nothing short of a conflict of economic interest.
Learning theoretical science, poetry, dance, music, etc. sounds very plausibly helpful for people who are incarcerated.
In my opinion, teaching meditation to inmates could change prisons in a significant way. You give them the tool that will allow them to cultivate inner peace, rewire their brain plus understand their own behavior by disengaging the "ego".
[deleted]
Idea for a novel: Faced with a fierce job market, young academics scramble for prison jobs. To cut costs, they are roomed and boarded with the very prisoners they're there to teach...
Add to that desperate young people looking to get ahead. They commit a crime in order to receive free education while incarcerated.
This reminds of the Shon Hopwood story from last year's CBS 60 Minutes.[1]
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-a-convicted-felon-who-beca...
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meet-a-convicted-felon-who-beca...
For your crime you are sentenced to 3 phd's in the field of astrophysics with no chance of parole.
May God have mercy on your soul.
May God have mercy on your soul.
Underrated comment ... education could very well be more punitive than the alternative!
It would be fun to see some sentences given in terms of X qualifications instead of X time!
Education is really the key to more balanced equality. Giving "prisoners" more opportunities and options is a must.
First, do no harm.
But, sure, this seems like a good idea.
But first, stop all the horrible stuff, currently hurting prisoners.
But, sure, this seems like a good idea.
But first, stop all the horrible stuff, currently hurting prisoners.
The evolutionary reason prison exists is because it is cheaper to society and government than riot and vendetta. As society grows more peaceful perhaps the balance will tip in favour of no prisons and they'll be shut down by the powers that be.
The scene it sets is of a collegial environment of highly motivated people who yearn to learn, and would commit themselves to pursuing a college degree, but for lack of access.
In reality, a large swath of the incarcerated population is not motivated to pursue additional education, or really any program that might help them get their lives back on track.
Part of it is because they frequently have underlying mental-health problems, addictions, learning disorders, or intellectual disabilities that often go undiagnosed or untreated in prison, and that must be addressed before they can get clear-headed enough to pursue their GED, let alone a college degree. Or they see a high-school or college diploma as pointless, either because they know the deck's stacked against them, or they don't know any other way of living.
So, it may be completely true that higher education is correlated with lower rates of recidivism, but that doesn't mean that increasing access to education _causes_ lower recidivism.
Rather, it likely means that people who are able and motivated to pursue higher education have lower rates and lower severities of mental-health issues or learning disorders, and a lack of those underlying issues predicts lower recidivism.