The problem with restitution is that many, perhaps most, criminals are judgement proof, do not have the assets with which to compensate their victims. You can require them to pay part of their income but they may not have much legible income. Some can be forced to work and pay by the threat of jail, some can't earn enough to support themselves and pay.
It is an issue you have to discuss if you argue for restitution. A different problem is raised in an old article of mine: "Why Not Hang Them All: The Virtues of Inefficient Punishment,"
Is it really true that many prisoners were only non-violent drug offenders? I have heard that many people in prison are there on a plea bargain, meaning that they plead down to a drug charge (easy to prove) when the police were pretty sure they had committed a more serious violent offense (takes more police and court resources to prove).
Thanks for the article. I was once involved in a discussion with a prison abolitionist and I got the impression after a few questions along the lines of what you’ve suggested here (what do you do with Ted Bundy) that they aren’t actually against incapacitation. I got the impression that the issue was largely semantic—redefining prison and things like that. But I’ve never bothered to read about it because it seems either ridiculous on its face or just a semantic game like so many other far left ideas that have become popular in recent years.
David Friedman's point that most criminals are judgement proof is correct - that just means restitution is only a partial solution for a subset of criminals. Still, an improvement.
Another obvious thing is to separate the psychopaths and violent criminals from the rest.
An argument that we imprison too many people would have to reckon with the data showing how a large portion of crimes are committed by a small number of folks. Those folks committing crimes are not in jail and often have dozens of arrests. That is not the hallmark of a society that over imprisons
There are probably better things to do with prisoners. I believe some states have them work to contribute to society / earn their keep. Maybe send them to an island like Britain used to. Death is warranted in many more cases than it is used today. I get the impression that the media is entirely dishonest in their coverage of death row cases, presenting monsters who are known with absolute certainty to be guilty in a sympathetic light. Look at Hananias posts on the subject for specific examples.
Why focus on empathy for criminals instead of empathy for people who have to be subjected to them.
I enjoyed the article and it is well reasoned. I agree on number 5, that incapacitation for the most violent criminals (psychopaths), is likely the only solution at this current time. However, I think the framing and understanding of those criminals can be adjusted.
For example, this statement: “Serious violent criminals deserve more suffering than lesser criminals do” certainly misunderstands psychopaths and their “free will” or ability to choose otherwise. As stated in that section and the example of Ted Bundy, he and other psychopaths are neurologically broken and will use and kill other humans regardless of any consequences. From our current understanding of neuroscience they are unable to choose otherwise.
A similar absurd sentiment to me would be:
Imagine a car that is sufficiently broken beyond repair that had killed some pedestrians. It is unsafe to be used on the streets and roadways. We know this car would need to go to a junkyard, garage, warehouse, etc where it would no longer be used.
However, I don’t think anyone would say that the broken car deserves any amount of suffering. Feelings like vengeance or retribution seem ridiculous in this scenario.
To further this, imagine we invent a pill that we can give to psychopaths the fixes the neurochemistry to feel empathy and understand normal morals and values, essentially being like you and I. Killing them and incarcerating them where they are subjected to suffering, abuse, and neglect seems obviously wrong and unjust.
With this framing we can more dispassionately reason answers to the problem of violent offenders and how to deal with them. We can separate them from society and ideally do it as humanely as possible.
The problem with restitution is that many, perhaps most, criminals are judgement proof, do not have the assets with which to compensate their victims. You can require them to pay part of their income but they may not have much legible income. Some can be forced to work and pay by the threat of jail, some can't earn enough to support themselves and pay.
It is an issue you have to discuss if you argue for restitution. A different problem is raised in an old article of mine: "Why Not Hang Them All: The Virtues of Inefficient Punishment,"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24104113_Why_Not_Hang_Them_All_The_Virtues_of_Inefficient_Punishment
Is it really true that many prisoners were only non-violent drug offenders? I have heard that many people in prison are there on a plea bargain, meaning that they plead down to a drug charge (easy to prove) when the police were pretty sure they had committed a more serious violent offense (takes more police and court resources to prove).
Thanks for the article. I was once involved in a discussion with a prison abolitionist and I got the impression after a few questions along the lines of what you’ve suggested here (what do you do with Ted Bundy) that they aren’t actually against incapacitation. I got the impression that the issue was largely semantic—redefining prison and things like that. But I’ve never bothered to read about it because it seems either ridiculous on its face or just a semantic game like so many other far left ideas that have become popular in recent years.
This is too sensible to be taken seriously.
David Friedman's point that most criminals are judgement proof is correct - that just means restitution is only a partial solution for a subset of criminals. Still, an improvement.
Another obvious thing is to separate the psychopaths and violent criminals from the rest.
An argument that we imprison too many people would have to reckon with the data showing how a large portion of crimes are committed by a small number of folks. Those folks committing crimes are not in jail and often have dozens of arrests. That is not the hallmark of a society that over imprisons
There are probably better things to do with prisoners. I believe some states have them work to contribute to society / earn their keep. Maybe send them to an island like Britain used to. Death is warranted in many more cases than it is used today. I get the impression that the media is entirely dishonest in their coverage of death row cases, presenting monsters who are known with absolute certainty to be guilty in a sympathetic light. Look at Hananias posts on the subject for specific examples.
Why focus on empathy for criminals instead of empathy for people who have to be subjected to them.
I enjoyed the article and it is well reasoned. I agree on number 5, that incapacitation for the most violent criminals (psychopaths), is likely the only solution at this current time. However, I think the framing and understanding of those criminals can be adjusted.
For example, this statement: “Serious violent criminals deserve more suffering than lesser criminals do” certainly misunderstands psychopaths and their “free will” or ability to choose otherwise. As stated in that section and the example of Ted Bundy, he and other psychopaths are neurologically broken and will use and kill other humans regardless of any consequences. From our current understanding of neuroscience they are unable to choose otherwise.
A similar absurd sentiment to me would be:
Imagine a car that is sufficiently broken beyond repair that had killed some pedestrians. It is unsafe to be used on the streets and roadways. We know this car would need to go to a junkyard, garage, warehouse, etc where it would no longer be used.
However, I don’t think anyone would say that the broken car deserves any amount of suffering. Feelings like vengeance or retribution seem ridiculous in this scenario.
To further this, imagine we invent a pill that we can give to psychopaths the fixes the neurochemistry to feel empathy and understand normal morals and values, essentially being like you and I. Killing them and incarcerating them where they are subjected to suffering, abuse, and neglect seems obviously wrong and unjust.
With this framing we can more dispassionately reason answers to the problem of violent offenders and how to deal with them. We can separate them from society and ideally do it as humanely as possible.