Damn near every day here in Memphis there's a report of some horrible shooting or homicide (technically crime is down like in a lot of cities but it's still really high). There was a big story about a year ago about a woman murdered by someone who had previously committed a serious crime. That story along with the constant drudge of awful crime news has led to a consensus that the DA and his lack or rigor in denying bail and getting light sentences is the biggest problem with crime in Memphis now.
It's infuriating and exhausting that I hear this everywhere both for the reasons you lay out here and because it diverts attention away from the rampant poverty and gun availability that are the main causes (to be fair people do talk about guns but TN Republicans are some of the worst people in the world and don't really let us do much about it). Thanks for this piece though, Noah. If I'm in a feisty mood I might cite it on reddit to at least give people some pushback on the bullshit.
The corporate slavery that exists in our prisons means they’re not going anywhere. It’s truly disgusting and horrifying that we have literal slavery condoned to enrich already rich people. It makes me wonder if we have learned anything.
These corporations need prisoners, so the violence and brutality that lead to more crime later are actually part of the plan.
I don't think that forced labor really is what makes prisons so difficult to dismantle? once you have prisons entrenched, capitalism is going to try to make use of them, and then you've got interests that fight for them—but the main impetus for mass incarceration was racism and a desire to control and police discriminated against populations, I think.
so I don't think that like outlawing prison work would necessarily change incentives or improve things much. (though raising prison wages would help people incarcerated in a range of ways.)
Oh, come on Noah! America has the worst recidivism rate in the world, by a big margin. The post incarceration lives of offenders in the US in a never ending punitive congo line. Are you being disingenuous or just having a lark?
The United States has a current recidivism rate of 70% within 5 years (U.S. Prison Population, 2019). This means that, within 5 years of their release, 70% of prisoners will have reoffended.
Hardly a case of, oh gosh, most people incarcerated never reoffend. Most of them reoffend on a regular basis, they keep bouncing in and out, mostly short sentences. Same in Australia. Our rate is just shy of 50 percent within two years.
All this tells us is that Western prison systems are poor at rehabilitation, and for America, especially , quite obsessed with the punishment aspect - punishment during incarceration, and then forever more.
Compare this with the approach in various Scandinavian countries. They're closing prisons, not expanding them, because they focus on rehabilitation.
A prisoner today is almost always a member of the community in the not too distant future. Transition to the community should have much bigger budgets, as should training, education, health services, and rehabilitation within the prison systems.
Pick your poison, violent offenders don't reoffend, so it serves no purpose to lock them up, or putting them in prison causes them to reoffend? Door A or door B? It can't be both, they're mutually exclusive claims.
they're not mutually exclusive at all? we can be talking about different people and different crimes. the most violent criminals aren't likely to reoffend, but putting people in prison increases the chances of offending—including esp offenses for less violent crimes. there's no contradiction.
"As this recent summary explains, people convicted of serious violent crimes—the crimes we would most like to prevent—are not very likely to convict crimes again once released from prison. That means imprisoning them doesn’t prevent much in the way of crime."
This isn't factually true, and isn't an argument against incarceration in any case.
Violet offenders don't miraculously walk out of prison as non violent citizens. They really don't.
Yes, solitary was originally seen as humane. It was not then, and isn’t now. Good intentions often lead to horrific outcomes, which has long been a problem with prison reform.
There are numerous restorative justice approaches which ppl are working on. That’s not the point of this piece though, which is pretty narrowly arguing that incapacity doesn’t work unless you feel crime is fine as long as it is directed at prisoners. I still don’t know if you agree with that or not.
The piece points out that part of the reason for lower rates among violent offenders may be that their sentences are longer so they're more likely to be older when they get out.
I'm happy to discuss these issues, and of course I make errors like anyone else. I don't really understand your belligerence, or your accusatory tone? They both really seem unnecessary.
You're reading belligerence and accusatory where none exits.
No one has ever pretended that incarceration isn't about societal punishment. Certainly incarceration or a death penalty are not deterrence. (No criminal thinks they're going to get caught. They're certainly not thinking about consequences when in the act of planning or commuting a crime.)
America has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, disproportionately young black men, as you would be well aware.
No incarceration for murderers, rapiers, repeat law violators? (Phew, for Trump!)
There's 100s of years of history behind societal norms, laws, and punishments, suggesting that this is all irrelevant, that prisons have no cultural context, and should simply be done away with because they don't prevent crime is glib.
I know there's a segment over your way keen on abolishing prisons, rather than reform, and modelling far more progressive counties, and yes, they too are being glib.
That one link is one link, one piece of research, of which thousands accumulate every year on this topic.
"Are you being disingenuous or just having a lark?"
That's a personal accusation of bad faith, Caz. So, yes, that's a personal attack and an insult. Maybe you didn't really think about what you were saying? That happens. It doesn't make me eager to engage, though, especially when you then refuse to acknowledge what you've said.
"That one link is one link, one piece of research, of which thousands accumulate every year on this topic."
Sure, but...you haven't provided any links or evidence at all? And I'm not even really sure what you're arguing at this point. More imprisonment? Less imprisonment? More focus on deterrence? Less focus on deterrence?
To me dismissing abolitionist arguments without really engaging them seems glib? I understand these convos can be difficult, but scattershot accusations and dismissing evidence you don't like doesn't seem like a helpful way to talk about this topic. My central claim is that incapacitation is ineffective because crime and violence in prison is rampant, and if you see prisoners as human beings you should care about whether they are being brutalized, too. Do you disagree with that?
Literally impossible to address simple claims and simple but wrong 'solutions' without writing a an extended essay or 10.
What is your proposal for addressing criminal acts, if not incarceration, the historic purpose of which was isolation and quite contemplation, more akin to a monastic experience. Unlike the contemporary brutality of American prisons.
But doesn't your first sentence prove his point, @Caz Hart? If the US had a better recidivism rate, you'd at least begin to pose an argument that the way we conduct our prisons is conducive to rehabilitation, but alas these evil people just can't overcome their evilness. But there is so much data (and anecdotes) that shows this not to be the case. And then there is your quoted data, too to support this data...
oh boy, I didn't read the whole thread. Whoops. My bad. Sorry. Anyway, "They increase it by creating populations without rights." is such a great quote. Thank you for that!
Damn near every day here in Memphis there's a report of some horrible shooting or homicide (technically crime is down like in a lot of cities but it's still really high). There was a big story about a year ago about a woman murdered by someone who had previously committed a serious crime. That story along with the constant drudge of awful crime news has led to a consensus that the DA and his lack or rigor in denying bail and getting light sentences is the biggest problem with crime in Memphis now.
It's infuriating and exhausting that I hear this everywhere both for the reasons you lay out here and because it diverts attention away from the rampant poverty and gun availability that are the main causes (to be fair people do talk about guns but TN Republicans are some of the worst people in the world and don't really let us do much about it). Thanks for this piece though, Noah. If I'm in a feisty mood I might cite it on reddit to at least give people some pushback on the bullshit.
The corporate slavery that exists in our prisons means they’re not going anywhere. It’s truly disgusting and horrifying that we have literal slavery condoned to enrich already rich people. It makes me wonder if we have learned anything.
These corporations need prisoners, so the violence and brutality that lead to more crime later are actually part of the plan.
I don’t know how we end this.
I don't think that forced labor really is what makes prisons so difficult to dismantle? once you have prisons entrenched, capitalism is going to try to make use of them, and then you've got interests that fight for them—but the main impetus for mass incarceration was racism and a desire to control and police discriminated against populations, I think.
so I don't think that like outlawing prison work would necessarily change incentives or improve things much. (though raising prison wages would help people incarcerated in a range of ways.)
Oh, come on Noah! America has the worst recidivism rate in the world, by a big margin. The post incarceration lives of offenders in the US in a never ending punitive congo line. Are you being disingenuous or just having a lark?
The United States has a current recidivism rate of 70% within 5 years (U.S. Prison Population, 2019). This means that, within 5 years of their release, 70% of prisoners will have reoffended.
Hardly a case of, oh gosh, most people incarcerated never reoffend. Most of them reoffend on a regular basis, they keep bouncing in and out, mostly short sentences. Same in Australia. Our rate is just shy of 50 percent within two years.
All this tells us is that Western prison systems are poor at rehabilitation, and for America, especially , quite obsessed with the punishment aspect - punishment during incarceration, and then forever more.
Compare this with the approach in various Scandinavian countries. They're closing prisons, not expanding them, because they focus on rehabilitation.
A prisoner today is almost always a member of the community in the not too distant future. Transition to the community should have much bigger budgets, as should training, education, health services, and rehabilitation within the prison systems.
I'm not sure why you're presenting this as some sort of refutation of anything I said?
Among other things, I said, "imprisoning people tends to make them more likely to offend in the future".
Pick your poison, violent offenders don't reoffend, so it serves no purpose to lock them up, or putting them in prison causes them to reoffend? Door A or door B? It can't be both, they're mutually exclusive claims.
they're not mutually exclusive at all? we can be talking about different people and different crimes. the most violent criminals aren't likely to reoffend, but putting people in prison increases the chances of offending—including esp offenses for less violent crimes. there's no contradiction.
"As this recent summary explains, people convicted of serious violent crimes—the crimes we would most like to prevent—are not very likely to convict crimes again once released from prison. That means imprisoning them doesn’t prevent much in the way of crime."
This isn't factually true, and isn't an argument against incarceration in any case.
Violet offenders don't miraculously walk out of prison as non violent citizens. They really don't.
Yes, solitary was originally seen as humane. It was not then, and isn’t now. Good intentions often lead to horrific outcomes, which has long been a problem with prison reform.
There are numerous restorative justice approaches which ppl are working on. That’s not the point of this piece though, which is pretty narrowly arguing that incapacity doesn’t work unless you feel crime is fine as long as it is directed at prisoners. I still don’t know if you agree with that or not.
I mean, I provided the source.
I didn't say anything about miracles? I feel like you're arguing with someone you've made up, rather than with me?
Here's a discussion of reoffense rates. violent criminals are least likely to reoffend, and for everyone reoffenses tend to be public order crimes like parole violations. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-prisoners-to-re-offend/
The piece points out that part of the reason for lower rates among violent offenders may be that their sentences are longer so they're more likely to be older when they get out.
I'm happy to discuss these issues, and of course I make errors like anyone else. I don't really understand your belligerence, or your accusatory tone? They both really seem unnecessary.
You're reading belligerence and accusatory where none exits.
No one has ever pretended that incarceration isn't about societal punishment. Certainly incarceration or a death penalty are not deterrence. (No criminal thinks they're going to get caught. They're certainly not thinking about consequences when in the act of planning or commuting a crime.)
America has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, disproportionately young black men, as you would be well aware.
No incarceration for murderers, rapiers, repeat law violators? (Phew, for Trump!)
There's 100s of years of history behind societal norms, laws, and punishments, suggesting that this is all irrelevant, that prisons have no cultural context, and should simply be done away with because they don't prevent crime is glib.
I know there's a segment over your way keen on abolishing prisons, rather than reform, and modelling far more progressive counties, and yes, they too are being glib.
That one link is one link, one piece of research, of which thousands accumulate every year on this topic.
"Are you being disingenuous or just having a lark?"
That's a personal accusation of bad faith, Caz. So, yes, that's a personal attack and an insult. Maybe you didn't really think about what you were saying? That happens. It doesn't make me eager to engage, though, especially when you then refuse to acknowledge what you've said.
"That one link is one link, one piece of research, of which thousands accumulate every year on this topic."
Sure, but...you haven't provided any links or evidence at all? And I'm not even really sure what you're arguing at this point. More imprisonment? Less imprisonment? More focus on deterrence? Less focus on deterrence?
To me dismissing abolitionist arguments without really engaging them seems glib? I understand these convos can be difficult, but scattershot accusations and dismissing evidence you don't like doesn't seem like a helpful way to talk about this topic. My central claim is that incapacitation is ineffective because crime and violence in prison is rampant, and if you see prisoners as human beings you should care about whether they are being brutalized, too. Do you disagree with that?
Literally impossible to address simple claims and simple but wrong 'solutions' without writing a an extended essay or 10.
What is your proposal for addressing criminal acts, if not incarceration, the historic purpose of which was isolation and quite contemplation, more akin to a monastic experience. Unlike the contemporary brutality of American prisons.
But doesn't your first sentence prove his point, @Caz Hart? If the US had a better recidivism rate, you'd at least begin to pose an argument that the way we conduct our prisons is conducive to rehabilitation, but alas these evil people just can't overcome their evilness. But there is so much data (and anecdotes) that shows this not to be the case. And then there is your quoted data, too to support this data...
I don’t think she’s reading. She blocked me, I believe.
oh boy, I didn't read the whole thread. Whoops. My bad. Sorry. Anyway, "They increase it by creating populations without rights." is such a great quote. Thank you for that!
The photograph of the below ground isolation Cell is arresting.
It recalls the discovery of tiger cages used during the war on Vietnam to put “enemy” families down in deep pits topped with mesh.
Your first section could use some editing to make stronger points and avoid phrases like “not very likely to convict crimes again“.
Really liked the identification of “punishment justly inflicted on bad people”
Outside of Trump how do we even decide someone is a bad person? Would love to hear more about this concept.
Thanks very much!