Every now and again, I'm exposed to someone stating that putting convicted criminals in prison does nothing to reduce crime.
Oh really, chief?
How's that work exactly? Is your theory that whenever someone does a crime and gets put in prison, some citizen without any criminal record or history will go on a crime spree to keep up the average?
Are you saying that crime is a thermodynamic equilibrium process?
I thought not.
Now scram.
Oh really, chief?
How's that work exactly? Is your theory that whenever someone does a crime and gets put in prison, some citizen without any criminal record or history will go on a crime spree to keep up the average?
Are you saying that crime is a thermodynamic equilibrium process?
I thought not.
Now scram.
Posts
8 comments:
Are you saying that there is no crime going on on the inside of prisons? Are you saying that you should put people in prison forever? If not, are you saying that people that comes out of prison STOPs doing crime? And, if not, wouldn't you sooner or later reach an equilibrium of people going in to prison and people getting out and keeping the crime rate up?
Now, death penalty on the other hand...
I'm talking about the fact that while the person who was sentenced for whatever crime is in prison, the odds of said person keeping up the same crime rate as he or she could on the outside are severely reduced.
Hence, crime is reduced.
I wasn't even trying to bring in any sort of politics into any sort of discussion, just expressing my annoyance at people who enjoy shouting slogans aimed at simpletons.
At no point did I bring up whether or not the system was ideal or whether better systems exist.
I'm talking about the fact that while the person who was sentenced for whatever crime is in prison, the odds of said person keeping up the same crime rate as he or she could on the outside are severely reduced.
Yes, I agree. For most groups of criminals.
Hence, crime is reduced.
Not necessary. There is a difference in the overall crime rate and the crime rate of one individual.
Let me summarize this, and see where you disagree:
- Convicted criminals will commit crime when they are not in prison. Right? Otherwise, your deduction that putting people in prison will reduce crime, fails.
- Criminals get out of prison. Do the crime, serve the time, but except for a few of the most serious crimes, convicted criminals will get out after some time. Right?
- So, applying Le Chatelier's principle*, an equilibrium of people getting in and out of prison will be reach after a while. Right?
Hence, you can't reduce crime simply by putting people in prison. At best, you can only stabilize the crime rate because people get out of prison in the same rate as people getting in. Right? No politics, just applying common sense.
Of course this whole discussion is way too oversimplified to be applied to the real world with any kind of accuracy. So I agree with the "annoyance at people who enjoy shouting slogans aimed at simpletons". And I do have some opinions about crime, just principles, no politics, that are more serious then this.
*He was french, so he got to be right, no?
- Convicted criminals will commit crime when they are not in prison. Right? Otherwise, your deduction that putting people in prison will reduce crime, fails.
Well; if the statement that "putting people in prison to punish them for crimes they can be proven to have committed does not reduce crime" is true, then logic dictates that the overall crime rate would stay more or less the same whether those people are removed from society at large for a period of time or not.
In other words, if someone is ruled guilty of multiple counts of burglary, the rate of burglary is going to stay the same whether or not this person is put in prison or put riht back on the street. That's what this statement boils down to.
- Criminals get out of prison. Do the crime, serve the time, but except for a few of the most serious crimes, convicted criminals will get out after some time. Right?
Sure. Add to that a certain percentage actually being reformed, and deduct a certain percentage which in essence goes to crime school.
- So, applying Le Chatelier's principle*, an equilibrium of people getting in and out of prison will be reach after a while. Right?
Hence, you can't reduce crime simply by putting people in prison. At best, you can only stabilize the crime rate because people get out of prison in the same rate as people getting in. Right? No politics, just applying common sense.
Nope, because the comparison would have to be not putting people in prison at all. That's the only way you could defend such a position based on facts. If you convict people, don't put them in prison and the crime rate stays the same as for a system in which a) convicted criminals are removed from society for a certain amount of time and b) the fact that committing crime may lead to prison time, then the initial statement would make sense.
I've got lots of opinions regarding this, but irrespective of those, this reeks of lemming slogans designed for the same people who would join a cult given a slightly different set of friends.
He was french, so he got to be right, no?
Well...there's a reason irreversible thermodynamics was developed as a concept and as a theoretical framework......
Nope, because the comparison would have to be not putting people in prison at all. That's the only way you could defend such a position based on facts.
It came out slightly wrong in my post above. My point wasn't that convicting people and letting them out on the street will give the same crime rate as putting people behind bars.
But you must agree that once you have a system where you actually put people in prison for a limited period of time, there will be a constant rate of people going in and out of prison. Hence, taking one person away from the streets only serves to keep the crime rate leveled, not reducing it. To reduce the crime rate, different actions needs to be taken.
The only way of reducing the crime rate is to permanently remove some of the criminals from the equation or slowing down the rate of criminal recruitment.
If you convict people, don't put them in prison and the crime rate stays the same...
It came out that way, but it was a mistake/ typeo from me. Never meant to claim that letting convicted people out of the streets with no consequences would yield the same crime rate as having a certain percentage of them in prison.
But you must agree that once you have a system where you actually put people in prison for a limited period of time, there will be a constant rate of people going in and out of prison. Hence, taking one person away from the streets only serves to keep the crime rate leveled, not reducing it. To reduce the crime rate, different actions needs to be taken.
I agree. However, this is in stark contrast to the original statement of "putting convicted criminals in prison does nothing to reduce crime". For this to be true, there would have to be no difference in crime whether or not people are put in prison.
The pseudo-equilibrium you describe - and that I agree with - is a different one than what's contained within the slogan. The equilibrium described by the slogan-chanters is dependent on the oppulation not incarcerated picking up the slack in order to keep up the crime that would otherwise have been committed by the inmates.
Well, we are nit-picking on each other here. In reality, I think there are only really minor differences in our opinions.
I don't know where you got that slogan, but I'm all for thinking in new directions when it comes crime fighting. It is a serious problem, espcially in some of the larger villages and the city in Norway. It affects both normal citizens sense of justice and security.
I don't know where you got that slogan, but I'm all for thinking in new directions when it comes crime fighting. It is a serious problem, espcially in some of the larger villages and the city in Norway. It affects both normal citizens sense of justice and security.
I've heard it on several occasions, including in televised debates involving a certain young up-and-comer from SV, sadly. This last time, I overheard it in a conversation that was obviously not a meeting of mental giants, despite it being on campus.
Incidentally; have you seen the movie Running Man or read the book? :-)
Post a Comment