Whats your take on prison sentencing and serving?

Amarante

Sun, May 03 2015, 11:24 am

amother wrote:

Actually they have done studies on this. Neither the severity of the punishment or what the punishment was prison/parole/fines/probation had any effect on deterring crime. The sole effect was the swiftness of the punishment to the crime.

Advanced penology theory is beyond my expertise.

However, I think that much of the research on that deals with perceptions of likelihood of being caught - I.e. not so much how fast but the certainty of the punishment.

It's one of the arguments (among others) as to why the death penalty isn't more of a deterrent than a long or life without parole sentence because in many jurisdictions - even if there is a death penalty - the actual odds of being executed are slim. And it's much more of a deterrent to think that you won't get away with the crime - whatever the punishment.

Most of our system relies to some degree on deterrence - I.e. you make examples of people so that other people are scared into acting properly. Although, some people do have strong internal moral compasses so that they do the right thing even if they could theoretically "get away with it". It's one of the reasons the IRS goes after high profile people - beyond the fact that there is more money to be made by auditing a rich person, it is likely to make the news and other people will think twice about cheating on their taxes.

mommy3b2c

Sun, May 03 2015, 11:37 am

gp2.0 wrote:

Ir Miklat was not so dissimilar to jail. Family members were within rights to kill someone if they killed a member of their family by ACCIDENT. This person who committed an involuntary crime had to pack up his entire life and run to the ir Miklat and never leave or risk death. So that's a life sentence for manslaughter - murder by mistake.

Actually, it was often a lesser crime than manslaughter. Manslaughter is if you intended to hurt but not kill, and then the person got killed. (Ex: you meant to punch someone and the punch killed them) the arai Miklat were even for complete accidents, where there was no intention of harm at all.

ora_43

Sun, May 03 2015, 2:09 pm

I definitely agree that there should be more emphasis on rehabilitation over imprisonment. And yes, imprisonment generally ends up costing more.

I think drawing the line at non-violent crimes is kind of arbitrary. A person who, say, knowingly defrauds needy elderly people could very well be more evil/twisted/whateveryouwanttocallit than someone who got in a bar fight. I think the violent-nonviolent line does have meaning, but it alone doesn't separate bad and less-bad criminals.

leah233

Sun, May 03 2015, 2:24 pm

If the only punishment for white collar crime was suing the persons pants off what does Joe Schmoe have to lose by getting caught in white collar crime?He can easily have his money on his wife or someone elses name and declare bankruptcy when he feels things heating up. Plus a lot people would look at it like any other "business" that you risk losing all your money by getting into.

33055

Sun, May 03 2015, 2:30 pm

leah233 wrote:

It is not the only punishment. If you deprive someone of their livelihood that is also a punishment. Taking away their business/professional license is crippling to some people.

Amarante

Sun, May 03 2015, 2:51 pm

In most cases, taking away their license is irrelevant unless they are a lawyer or doctor or maybe a stockbroker. Many people who commit financial fraud or other white collar crimes don't have a license to take away.

I watch a show called American Greed and almost none of the people are licensed - they just cheat people. In fact a few of the fraudsters were disbarred lawyers who moved and then began REALLY defrauding people. One person was a doctor who lost his license and then became involved with stealing body parts in New York City - I don't know if people remember that awful case from about 10 years ago.

ETA - I have no problem taking away a person's license if related to the crime as an ADDITIONAL form of punishment. For example, a doctor who is convicted of Medicare/Medicaid fraud should no longer be allowed to practice. Lawyers are automatically disbarred in most jurisdictions if they are convicted of a felony. I can't imagine allowing a stockbroker to continue to sell securities if they have been convicted of crimes involving financial issues.

33055

Sun, May 03 2015, 3:11 pm

Amarante wrote:

If you are not bondable that can limit your choices in the financial services field. If there is any publicity, it can affect getting new clients.

I know someone who while not convicted of any crime was caught "churning" a client's account. He had to give back the all of his earnings from that account which was $600,000. He already paid taxes on that money and he had to pay it back with after tax money. He had worked for Bear Sterns and he now works for a no name firm selling municipal bonds earning a fraction of what he earned. The interesting thing was that the client was not hurt and he made her a profit.

The stigma of this is paralysing him. Some communities like mine (and inner city ghettos) have no stigma for a conviction. Others like his, treat people like social pariahs.

bluebird

Sun, May 03 2015, 9:27 pm

DrMom wrote:

I think I remember reading an article about prison in Japan and how they have a very low rate of recidivism. Prisoners are taught marketable skills so when they get out, they can find employment and are less likely to turn to crime. IIRC, the article I read spoke about a program where prisoners were taught to become barbers.

While I agree that the prison situation in the US is out of control and broken, and that reform is desperately needed, using Japan as a model won't work as well here. Japanese culture emphasizes conformity to an extreme that you simply don't see in the US or really most other cultures. Japan is also a shame-based culture in which how others feel about you is the important thing—being reformed involves removing that shame. This different than the US, which predominantly has a guilt-based culture.

A major problem in the US is that prisoners are "hardened" by contact with other prisoners and come out worse than before. The longer the sentence, the harder it is to deal with the changed culture when released. Plus, they're back in the environment from which they came, where they often are reabsorbed back into the criminal element and really don't have choices to do something different. A felony conviction makes you virtually unemployable.

imasoftov

Mon, May 04 2015, 3:01 am

mommy2b2c wrote:

You do understand that white collar crime has nothing to do with the color of your skin? A black or Hispanic or Asian person can also commit a white collar crime. And they also should not be thrown in a max security with rapists and murderers. You are so busy accusing everyone of being racist, I don't think you even realize what you wrote.

I do know the meaning of the phrase "white collar crime" and if you read my response to Dr. Mom assuming otherwise, you are the one who did not realize what I wrote. In case it's not clear, I will try again without the word "white" to avoid confusion between the unrelated concepts: while I think that separating violent from nonviolent criminals is something worth discussing, not imprisoning nonviolent criminals at all is what the OP called for.

SRS

Sun, May 10 2015, 5:24 pm

Not sure what good solutions exist for fraudsters. They are savvy and intelligent and hardened to begin with. They are also calculating and greedy. If we could guarantee that they never do more than operate a broom again, perhaps there would be a good solution, but a lot of them will just move from one fraud to another using the broom as their new tool of fraud.

And to the OP, before taking your assertions from AMI at face value, I suggest Google. Kerik is out trying to sell a book, but my surfacing Googling shows a character that a judge might want to throw the book at. I can guarantee you that if my neighbor doesn't pay their nanny appropriately, restitution will be their punishment, not prison.