Prisons

[Jacobus]

I don't like prisons.  I think it is immoral to imprison someone, no matter what crime they've done.  If we lived in a society where prisons were supported by voluntary contributions, I would not contribute any money to their maintenance, and I would not contribute money to any so-called justice system that resulted in prison sentences.

I think that private property combined with social pressures and shunning-type activities could produce a society where criminals are treated in a morally correct manner, yet still are "punished" (and perhaps even expelled) by the people who wish to do so.  The essence of this morality is that all interactions ought to be voluntary, even with individuals who committed past crimes.

Am I crazy?

[TackleTheWorld]

I agree with you.  Prison teaches people how to endure boredom and unproductivity for long periods of time.  Not exactly what you want to encourage in anyone.   I like restitution better.  The criminal is not corralled and shackled and helpless, he can act to free himself from a bad reputation.  He can make money to pay his victim and achieve normal status again.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Ditto!

[dysurian]

Am I crazy?

Naw, you're not crazy, just thoughtful. Being thoughtful these days gets you accused of being crazy, but rest assured that logic is on your side with this one. I don't agree with prison-as-punishment, but think there might still be a place for completely hopeless cases (violently schizophrenic people, for instance) to be restrained/rehabilitated against their "will" to some degree. I think freedom is determined by the ability to choose, and when someone demonstrates that they're incompetent to make or understand their own choices (whether good or bad) that there may be a place for some types of imprisonment. Your thoughts?

But yes, for criminal choices made by people able to pay restitution I think prison is very close to completely useless.

[David]

I agree.  In an imperfect world, it is never possible to be completely safe. 
I expect those that have hurt others to chose to, or bow to pressure to pay restitution for his wrongs.  Having said that, many will not.  Those that care about justice, will shun him, and everyone else will jeopardize their own safety by not shunning him. 

To clear up a very common misconception; many will say the criminal will get away with crime if he chooses not to pay restitution, or to otherwise suffer.  Justice isn't about revenge, and violent coersive restitution is more revenge than anything else.  Shunning is about protecting oneself from future harm.  The most common parrallel today is that of consumer protection.  It isn't about hurting the criminal, it is about protection oneself. 
Particularly aggressive violaters, such as murderers, rapists, repeat offenders of lesser assaults, should be dealt with in a serious manner proportionate to the crime.  I don't mean hunt down a murderer and kill him.  I mean to restrain (brief imprisonment, long prolly does no good.) them, then expel them from the community.  There really cannot be restitution for murder.  Once repeat and/or violent persons are out of a community, they can no longer harm its occupants.  Of course,  a free society is an armed society, and it is russian roulette to assault people. 

[Pat McCotter]

I caught the "Russian roulette" comment but...

Expelling violent criminals from a community? This means that some other community gets to play roulette, no? What happens to your ability to trade with communities who suffer the adverse effect of your community's expulsion of that criminal?

[Faber]

You could warn the other communities . . . .  The Internet is a great thing.  Expel, and publicize.  Have a website or something.  I'm sure there would be all sorts of voluntary mutual arrangements of this sort between communities.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I'm thinking that in a well armed society where individuals are in charge of protecting themselves, and, their property, the learning curve for criminals will be short and swift, and, there will be fewer of them then there are today.

[John Edward Mercier]

Well warning other communities will mean they have no place to settle and re-enter society in a productive manner. Also how would you like someone with the same name as yourself to be on the list for something dastardly?

Actually this 'learning curve' for criminals is just the opposite... it will increase the violence of the petty criminal. We see this during police chases, where someone with a minor offense turns its into anxiety flight.

The major problem with our present system is the transformation of 'social mores' into laws.

[J’raxis 270145]

Well warning other communities will mean they have no place to settle and re-enter society in a productive manner.

The people that he was suggesting be subject to such treatment would be the repeat offenders—people not likely to ever be "productive members of society."

The major problem with our present system is the transformation of 'social mores' into laws.

Agreed.

[John Edward Mercier]

So someone would need to commit murder or rape, be caught and convicted twice before something was done?

[J’raxis 270145]

So someone would need to commit murder or rape, be caught and convicted twice before something was done?

I meant that the described treatment—complete shunning and cut-off from all communities, basically turning the criminal into the old concept of an "outlaw"—would be most appropriate for repeat offenders. If someone's committed the act once, they certainly deserve to be punished, but to be reduced to complete and permanent banishment would be an overreaction—especially if the person is in fact redeemable.

[MaineShark]

Actually this 'learning curve' for criminals is just the opposite... it will increase the violence of the petty criminal. We see this during police chases, where someone with a minor offense turns its into anxiety flight.

The learning curve that Lloyd was referring to, I expect, was that the deaths of these nutcases at the hands of their would-be victims will convince others who are "on the fence" to learn something useful to do with their lives, instead.

Joe

[David]

I caught the "Russian roulette" comment but...

Expelling violent criminals from a community? This means that some other community gets to play roulette, no? What happens to your ability to trade with communities who suffer the adverse effect of your community's expulsion of that criminal?

It already happens today.  When they release convicts, they don't usually take them to their original town, they just let them go where ever the prison is.  The laws restricting where sex offenders live also do it. 

So someone would need to commit murder or rape, be caught and convicted twice before something was done?

No.  I expect people to take responsibility for the harm committed, that means restitution.  Not perfect, but far better than what we have today.  Those that choose to take responsibility, should be re-accepted to some degree by those who value justice. 
But many will never take responsibility, those persons should be shunned. 
It is not possible to pay restitution for murder.  Killing a murderer is not an option I think is even viable, except in the act of actual self defense.  Are you willing to be responsible for being a member of a lynch mob that is proven to have killed an innocent man?  The state routinely has killed people innocent of the accused crime.  Death is rather permanent. 
I am always conscious that good means will result in good ends. 
I do not see many alternatives to expelling particularly violent persons, and those who are 'repeat offenders of lesser crimes against others'.  Possibly prison camp, but that involves a tremendous amount of power given to one group of people over another.  Not good, and is ripe for being corrupted. 
There may be other ingenious ways to deal with violence than I think.  But I am trying to point out what is possible today.  1. Create an expectation that to harm someone creates a liability.  2. You have a responsibility to pay for your liabilities.  3. Choosing not to will limit your opportunities among those that value justice (shunning).  4. Repeatedly choosing to harm others may result in threats against you for your repeated victimization of others.  5. This may end in you being forced to leave. 
All of those are possible today.  None of it requires any grand or complicated system.  It is more effective when more people cooperate. 

[firecracker joe]

i think the punishment should fit the crime therefore i should have been put in a room and made to smoke pot until i couldnt smoke anymore or until they got tired of watching me get high.