Is punishment a flawed concept?

Simple imprisonment and capital punishment are. Forced labour or other forms of punishment that turn the delinquent into some sort of asset for society are not.

Yes, but it's the easiest and fastest way to do it. In the future we'll find that rehabilitation is better in the long run, but we still have a long way to go until then.

I'm somewhat in the Heinlein boat, in that I believe corporal punishment and public humiliation are indeed effective punishments for smaller infractions, while confinement as useless as a punishment, particularly to the destitute.

Incarceration is necessary to remove dangerous elements from society until they can be rendered safe again - but that last bit is critical - all incarceration should be in the name of rehabilitation.

If it is determined rehabilitation is impossible, and the citizen remains a threat to others, then, and only then, should they be kept imprisoned, with periodic review for new treatment methods, or in the case of extreme danger coupled potential escape, slain.

That's in an ideal society - I don't trust any government currently in operation with immediate authority over life and death, even if I can't avoid them having it.

Insanity or drug use should never be a defense. It should indeed be aggravating circumstances, as it increases the chances of recidivism. "Temporary insanity" would depend on the cause and likelihood of recurrence. Whether you know right form wrong is not an issue - but whether or not you do wrong. You will stay in rehabilitation until your caregivers collectively conclude you will not.

And should you recidivate, said caregivers that released you should in some way be held responsible, at the very least affecting their position.

baby boomers tried to go down your route and thats how we ended up with our current system of permanent inmates, gang culture, drug trafficking, and demographic civil war. The only time you can prevent someone from doing something is through the state literally holding them down from doing it, meaning restricting freedoms to the point of making them slaves. Like in prisons and feudal monarchies.

>I'm somewhat in the Heinlein boat, in that I believe corporal punishment and public humiliation are indeed effective punishments for smaller infractions, while confinement as useless as a punishment, particularly to the destitute.
The threat of prison deters ME. I certainly wouldn't murder anybody, but the thought of losing months or years of my life in prison absolutely makes me think twice about nonviolent crimes that I might otherwise be tempted to commit.

It's not like I want to be stripped naked and caned in the town square, but I'd take that over prison time in a second. So I don't really agree with what you're saying at all.

Where I live - folks just don't understand the difference between justice and revenge.

We have the death penalty, and some doctor was advocating killing people with nitrogen masks. Perfectly painless, no panic, no training required. His idea was shot down because it was too humane. The criminal has to suffer, or the public is not satisfied.

Thus, we have these overcrowded prisons with like 3% of the total population in them, where politicians deliberately make them as miserable as possible, to the point where people occasionally die from the food and suicide is more common than escape at the 10 year mark, and further, we've removed just about every possibility for those so incarcerated to better themselves and become productive citizens - where we used to have full college programs. ...and of course, it's next to impossible to get employed once you've been through that system, even in entry level jobs that are in no way security sensitive.

It's just insanity. The criminal population is growing like never before, and people who go to prison for short periods, more often than not, become experienced criminals with underworld connections even before they get out.

Well, a violent crime isn't exactly a "smaller infraction" - that's incarceration with rehabilitation.

I bet you'd be much less apt to speed or steal beer, if it meant five lashes in the public square though.

>I bet you'd be much less apt to speed or steal beer, if it meant five lashes in the public square though.
That might work in your "ideal society" - but there's a lot of sub-cultures in western nations that pride themselves on their criminality, and would probably take that just to be able to put on the show.

What's worse, is it could become a form of protest.

But I do agree that ramping up fees until you put someone in jail isn't really working. Particularly when that costs them more money in turn, and likely permanently removes them from the useful citizen pool, while also exposing them to the harder criminal element.

I said nonviolent crimes, dude.

As far as speeding and beer-stealing goes, it's not like those put you in jail (usually, anyway). Being fined isn't a significant deterrent, and neither would five lashes, honestly (I'm not claiming I'm some fucking badass about pain, but it's pretty abstract until you're actually experiencing it.) The main deterrent there for me is the permanent criminal record and consequent difficulty gaining employment etc.

When I said nonviolent crimes, I'm thinking about stuff like drug offenses, even embezzlement potentially, not shoplifting or speeding or even DUIs. Maybe we're on different pages. What is one nonviolent offense that is currently punished by incarceration that you would like to see punished by whipping etc instead?

>baby boomers tried to go down your route and thats how we ended up with our current system of permanent inmates, gang culture, drug trafficking, and demographic civil war.
What ? No that's completely wrong.
Gang culture and all that developed precisely because prison became a fundamental cultural element and socialization center for urban black populations.

Hedonists love to punish people who do not appear to them as not behaving appropriately

My bad, I read your post too fast... But yeah, for smaller infraction I'm thinking misdemeanor offenses. Generally not what we think of when we say, "embezzlement", though it is for some drug crimes, like getting caught with a joint.

Though I don't agree with drug laws in general. It's effectively preemptively charging for a crime they might commit, under the premise the drug makes them more likely to - and that's the sort of thing I call "injustice". No, but if you are on drugs when you commit a crime, you're more dangerous than someone who isn't an addict, not less, and should be dealt with accordingly. Ingestion is strictly an "at your own risk" thing - and shouldn't be a legal issue until that risk propagates to someone else, at which point it becomes a crime you actually committed, even it's something passive, like child endangerment via neglect.

Fair point. Though, yes, we also need an alternative for those fees, and to put an end to this situation where hardened criminals and first time offenders end up in the same box.

>The criminal has to suffer, or the public is not satisfied.
People who think like that are clearly in need of rehabilitation.

Not at all.
Though laws tend to be pretty retarded.

>die from the food and suicide is more common than escape at the 10 year mark
Meant to say, suicide is more common than completing your sentence, at the 10 year mark. People rarely escape, save by suicide.

The food thing is interesting as it basically forces folks on the outside to pay to the inmate's commissary so they can get food from these ludicrously profitable prison services that in turn pay stempents to the prison to be allowed to provide that service. Basically, you gotta have someone on the outside pay the prison to feed you something that won't poison you. (Even then it's not great, but at least it's the standard pre-package non-perishable stuff, like ramen, Doritos, and the like.)

I know a gal who's in prison (a rich white girl, oddly), and visiting her was just the eye opener from hell. Granted, I didn't even know there was a difference between jail and prison until she went full wigger and got thrown in there. Jail is, oddly, even worse, mostly due to overcrowding - and that's for folks who haven't been convicted yet.

She was always a trouble maker, but she started off just getting caught with pot, then had a brief stint in jail where she met up with a bunch of dealers - went from goth to gangsta, became a big time drug dealer - and is now in prison for 10 years for two armed robberies the rich bitch just did for kicks while high.

Shit's fucked yo.

>The food thing is interesting as it basically forces folks on the outside to pay to the inmate's commissary so they can get food from these ludicrously profitable prison services
I think the for-profit prison system is the most terrifying invention of the modern age. It's only a matter of time before they have to increase their stock dividends enough that they have to expand beyond arresting darkies, and by then, they'll have so much cash that they'll be able to silence any dissent.

It's also one of the few service industries that automation can't kill. I mean, you might find ways to replace guards and the like - but no one's gonna pay for robot prisoners.

>I think the for-profit prison system is the most terrifying invention of the modern age.
prisoners used to have to pay in prison certainly during Elizabethen times in Britain and going on until the early 19thC iirc. food, the room you got, the treatment received, visitors, etc was all paid for or not received and ths staff and owners did profit well, so its not a new invention more of a classic.

Well that just makes it more depressing...

I mean, I get reparations for harm - but that goes to the victims. But yes, I suppose having society pay to lock you up when you fail to obey the social contract is just too much to ask.

Albeit, if it at least all went to the government, which is, ideally, accountable, I'd have less trouble with it. The fact that it's going to private enterprises that are only accountable to their bottom line is a fundamental problem. And, ya gotta admit, feeding folks poison if they don't pay is more than a little barbaric, even though, yes, I know full well worse has been done in the past.

Society really shouldn't benefit from criminals to the degree where it wants to encourage crime as if it were a local industry.

yes, because only poor people are punished

No.

Fear of punishment is much more important that punishment itself

Fpbp

Prison is basically a mechanism for society to get rid of a troublesome person without having to face the ethical dilemma of the death penalty, content to believe that we aren't really harming the accused by keeping him in a cage.

>for practical utilitarian reasons
The basic problem with utilitarian reasoning is that it assumes the least logical premise in human society; that the average person is a pragmatist. In this case, we physically see the fallacy in your reasoning reflected in repeat offenders and recidivism rates.

>the average person is a pragmatist
The average person will not be making these decisions on how punishment is dealt.

>don't punish anybody ever
>have no ability to make moral evaluations of actions

Woah damn that's deep my man (keep in mind that even cushy Nordic countries still have punishments where their imprisoned are deprived of rights, etc.)

Think it's more a question as to whether punishment is effective as a corrective procedure.

I think you're stuck with it, in the case of children, at least until the age of reason.

In adults, you have the option of attempting corrective procedures. (While, for children, being raised is basically one long corrective procedure.)

If you CAN correct the behavior without inflicting suffering, should you not? Should you not at least attempt to correct the behavior with the least infliction of harm possible, even if you have to temporarily remove them from society during that attempt?

Tossing folks in prison, without rehabilitation, only temporarily suppresses the problem and serves as an example for others. It doesn't, however, address the issues behind the problem, and, in nations with high prison populations, clearly the deterrent alone is not enough.

rehabilitation does not work for insane people and is only useful in societies that where the average person has a high value.

Traumatic experience is one of the primary methods humans learn and modify their behavior.

There's no better tool than fear.

Rehabilitation works. It's proven. Varg is now a productive expat citizen and overall wonderful human being.

Didn't he whored himself in prison.

Yeah, but with prison, especially for destitute chronic criminals, it's at best slightly worse than their daily lives - maybe even a step up, in some cases.

And the only reason it isn't just plain boredom, is because all the other criminals are there - conditioning you towards more criminal behavior, towards the criminal way of thinking.

Seems that would only make a person harder, and turn minor first time hooligans into career criminals... Which is, of course, exactly what it does.