134
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
134 points (92.4% liked)
News
23275 readers
1347 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The idea that imprisonment is for rehabilitation is fucking stupid and new.
Prison may rehabilitate some people, and those people should have the means to seek that rehabilitation if they want to.
The main goal of prisons is to protect society from criminals by removing them and deterring others from committing crimes through fear of punishment.
I swear, some people just say dumb shit to see if it catches on. Unfortunately, 'prisons are for rehab' is just as stupid as calling people latinx.
I think it'd be hilarious if some right-wing troll just floated the idea to see how many fools would pick up on it.
"The United States suffers from among the highest crime and recidivism rates in the world. This is in part due to its focus on retribution as the purpose of punishment and its high sentencing structure. Norway, on the other hand, has some of the lowest crime and recidivism rates and boasts Halden prison, which has been hailed as the world’s most humane prison. In Halden and other prisons, the Norwegian penal system applies the principle of normality. Under the principle of normality, Norway seeks the reintegration of its offenders into society. Its prisoners suffer fewer of the negative, unintended side effects of prison that isolate the prisoner from society, reinforce bad habits, and make reintegration upon release nearly impossible. This Comment proposes that the United States could reduce its high crime and recidivism rates with a penological approach that bridges that of the two countries—a rehabilitative retributivism. The United States can keep its focus on retribution while at the same time making sure that its punishment does not swell to include those negative side effects. By reducing its sentencing structures and incorporating the principle of normality into its retributive goal, the United States could better ensure that prisoners return to society as productive members, and it could experience lower crime and recidivism rates as a result."
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=eilr
" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla lobortis auctor nunc, vel scelerisque nisi aliquet ac. Quisque quis sem quis ligula maximus finibus eu eu leo. Mauris eu tempor lacus. Aliquam a odio nec mauris volutpat tincidunt sed at augue. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Aenean bibendum, massa ac vestibulum euismod, metus eros ullamcorper sem, vel porta eros turpis quis urna. Morbi hendrerit porttitor orci quis vulputate. Vestibulum vel elementum lorem. Quisque ut nibh ipsum. Nunc aliquet maximus nunc. Vestibulum vitae nisl non mi sollicitudin luctus ut sit amet lectus. Fusce ac est nec magna maximus fringilla vitae non nisl. Fusce aliquam iaculis magna quis hendrerit. Quisque ac ipsum eget ante finibus eleifend lacinia faucibus tortor. Suspendisse hendrerit diam non velit lacinia, eget luctus sapien fringilla. Ut ante mauris, convallis id ante in, venenatis feugiat justo.
Fusce vulputate euismod nunc, sit amet mollis augue tincidunt nec. Vivamus tincidunt justo turpis, eu aliquet mi varius vitae. Praesent eu egestas lacus. Morbi facilisis augue quis metus semper, quis fringilla arcu iaculis. Nulla massa augue, sodales scelerisque tempus vel, tincidunt non nibh. Nam fermentum quam id mollis ullamcorper. Donec feugiat mi ac semper dignissim. Vivamus lacinia tempor nulla at varius."
https://www.lipsum.com/
Weak response. Play the ball, not the person.
Lol, what?
You are a trash human
Right. Now we see how you react when backed into a corner.
Hahahahaha dude I was probably shitting btwn meetings in my real adult life laughing at you, while writing you. You're clearly paradigms above me Big Dog. I didn't even know I was in a conflict in my life but apparently I was cornered.
While we're at it.. dayum! I'm triggered!
Lol, calm down.
Norway enters the chat.
What about it?
The only difference between Norway and the US is their prison system?
Norway has demonstrated that rehabilitating prisoners leads to less crime than just punishing them. Who would be against that?
People who realize there are more differences between Norwegian society and American than just how they treat their prisoners.
Norway didn't 'prove' your point. Sorry you think they did.
I've provided evidence to back up my position. What have you provided except your opinion?
What do you mean 'my opinion'?
It's a fact that there are more differences between Norway and the US than how they treat their prisoners. Do you think these differences may impact the recidivism rate of prisoners in either nation?
I'm addressing your main point, which was:
My point is that deterrence has been proven to be a poor tool to reduce crime. Rehabilitation has been proven to be a relatively more successful tool to reduce recidivism.
The Norwegian approach to prisoners is one piece of evidence in support of this. Here's some more (non-Norwegian) evidence:
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/fear-punishment-deterrence
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7363&context=jclc
Of course there are other differences between the US and Norway, but that doesn't change the validity of what I'm saying. If you want to argue that deterrence works, back it up with some evidence.
You didn't answer my question.
Do you think these differences may impact the recidivism rate of prisoners in either nation? Yes or no.
Your question is vague and unanswerable as you haven't clarified what "these differences" are, so their impact on recidivism can't be determined.
What I do know is that rehabilitation has been shown to reduce recidivism more than sanctions/supervision. Here's a meta-analysis for you. It looks like at least some of this data is from the US.
"Supervision and sanctions, at best, show modest mean reductions in recidivism and, in some instances, have the opposite effect and increase re-offense rates. The mean recidivism effects found in studies of rehabilitation treatment, by comparison, are consistently positive and relatively large."
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark-Lipsey/publication/228187332_The_Effectiveness_of_Correctional_Rehabilitation_A_Review_of_Systematic_Reviews/links/0deec518c2b2abd5fc000000/The-Effectiveness-of-Correctional-Rehabilitation-A-Review-of-Systematic-Reviews.pdf
What evidence do you have that deterrence and supervision are more effective at reducing crime than rehabilitation?
Lol, okay. I have my answer.
You know there are other factors that influence the recidivism rate for both countries, but you're ashamed to admit it because you know it detracts from your point.
Glad we can clear that up. Have a nice day.
You are ascribing a position to me that I don't have.
Nor have you provided any evidence for your point while I have provided links to several studies. Pony up some evidence for your argument or be prepared to learn and grow. Or remain stubbornly wedded to your incorrect opinion. Makes no difference to me.
Then admit it? It's not that difficult.
"Yes, there are other factors that influence each nation's recidivism rate." See how easy and unambiguous that was? But instead you tried to take the sly road of saying I "didn't mention what those differences are." I shouldn't need to. That isn't my point. Lol.
Like I said, you know they exist but clearly want to avoid admitting it because it detracts from your point.
I don't need to. Once we establish that the are other factors (finally), then I can ask you why you believe Norway's prison system significantly outweighs their impact on prisoner recidivism.
See how simple and easy discussion can be when you're not afraid to say what you mean?
You're funny. Clearly you aren't interested in having a good faith debate about facts, but just to troll.
I wonder who you work for? Russia maybe? Judging by your post history, you have some agenda here. Think I'll watch and see.
Err... what?
Do you say that about everything you don't like?
Hahahahaha I don't bc that wouldn't make sense!
Do you always validate the very statements from which you're trying to deflect by acting them out in real time?
(E. G. you didn't acknowledge you were being like BS. And then, like BS, drew a false correlation to what I was saying and shifted the subject. Much like BS, the subject matter itself being the "opponent's" "tactics.")