student loans are a hit!

[unsunghero]

The difference between giving away 10 years of your life, especially as a younger offender, versus like 20-30 years, is beyond words better. Not to mention for middle aged offenders, the idea of giving away the best decades of your life to a complete shithole prison, and getting out at the nice old age, is just as bad mentally on someone as doing a few years?

Is anyone really trying to make this argument?

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The difference between giving away 10 years of your life, especially as a younger offender, versus like 20-30 years, is beyond words better. Not to mention for middle aged offenders, the idea of giving away the best decades of your life to a complete shithole prison, and getting out at the nice old age, is just as bad mentally on someone as doing a few years?

Is anyone really trying to make this argument?

Well see there's a study, so... that means its true. It also means there totally aren't other studies that directly contradict it.

It's just laughably absurd. If the penalty for jaywalking was 30 years in prison instead of a stern talking-to, would there be more or less jaywalking? Apparently it would make absolutely no difference to jaywalking rates, because of the magic study!

This is the danger of venerating every generic academic; some of them are really stupid, and the methodology of their studies is dogshit and they set out with a particular conclusion in mind that they're searching for from the get-go. That's not science. But it sounds sciency enough to convince people.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well see there's a study, so... that means its true. It also means there totally aren't other studies that directly contradict it.

It's just laughably absurd. If the penalty for jaywalking was 30 years in prison instead of a stern talking-to, would there be more or less jaywalking? Apparently it would make absolutely no difference to jaywalking rates, because of the magic study!

This is the danger of venerating every generic academic; some of them are really stupid, and the methodology of their studies is dogshit and they set out with a particular conclusion in mind that they're searching for from the get-go. That's not science. But it sounds sciency enough to convince people.

The legal system gives millions and millions of dollars to people who give decades of their life for wrongful imprisonment. If we are going to attach a dollar value for how bad it is to give away the entire time when your body is in the prime of its life in a complete shithole

[loramin]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The difference between giving away 10 years of your life, especially as a younger offender, versus like 20-30 years, is beyond words better. Not to mention for middle aged offenders, the idea of giving away the best decades of your life to a complete shithole prison, and getting out at the nice old age, is just as bad mentally on someone as doing a few years?

Is anyone really trying to make this argument?

Right, you're saying that as a rational adult, assuming you're going to get caught. But criminals don't think that way.

I used to shoplift as a kid. Now, if we had the death penalty for shoplifting or something, that might have stopped me. Otherwise though, I was going to shoplift without even knowing the exact consequences of getting caught, because I didn't think I was going to get caught.

And again, for more serious crimes like murder ... if someone is considering murdering another person, they're not thinking very much about the number of years in their sentence if they get caught: that's just human nature.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right, you're saying that as a rational adult, assuming you're going to get caught. But criminals don't think that way.

I used to shoplift as a kid. Now, if we had the death penalty for shoplifting or something, that might have stopped me. Otherwise though, I was going to shoplift without even knowing the exact consequences of getting caught, because I didn't think I was going to get caught.

And again, for more serious crimes like murder ... if someone is considering murdering another person, they're not thinking very much about the number of years in their sentence if they get caught: that's just human nature.

THEN IT STILL STANDS

that a person in prison is a person who is unable to commit offenses to the public. So the LONGER they are in prison, the longer that period where the public is safe from them

Keep neglecting that part aren’t we

Not to mention, no one really knows how many criminals heard through word of mouth or elsewhere about a sentence and decided not to. No one is going to voluntarily report that in some stupid study or survey

[loramin]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

THEN IT STILL STANDS

that a person in prison is a person who is unable to commit offenses to the public. So the LONGER they are in prison, the longer that period where the public is safe from them

Keep neglecting that part aren’t we

Not to mention, no one really knows how many criminals heard through word of mouth or elsewhere about a sentence and decided not to. No one is going to voluntarily report that in some stupid study or survey

You don't need a survey. You look at state #1 that gives 10 years for a crime and state #2 that gives 20 years: it's that simple.

When you do, you see that the crime rate is the same in both states: state #2's harsher penalty didn't deter anyone.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You don't need a survey. You look at state #1 that gives 10 years for a crime and state #2 that gives 20 years: it's that simple.

When you do, you see that the crime rate is the same in both states: state #2's harsher penalty didn't deter anyone.

Because there are no other differences between the populations of 2 possibly very different states that might factor into those rates. Of course

[loramin]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because there are no other differences between the populations of 2 possibly very different states that might factor into those rates. Of course

Of course there are differences ... but none that reasonably explain why the crime rate is the same despite massively harsher penalties.

Look, criminals are bad people who do hurtful things. You want them to hurt and suffer in response: that's natural. In fact, it's very human. We have vengeance hard-wired into our DNA, because when we were evolving it was a key component of social behavior: societies that punished societal transgressors succeeded over ones that didn't.

But we're not in hunter-gatherer tribes anymore! We have these big brains that we also evolved. So either you can stick solely with your evolved gut vengeance motivation ... or you can use your big evolved human brain to actually look at the studies, and think logically.

Seriously, have whatever political beliefs you want, and want criminals to suffer whatever harsh penalties you can imagine ... but also live in and understand reality. In reality, in general (obviously this doesn't hold true for every crime/punishment) harsher penalties simply don't deter criminals from committing crimes

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course there are differences ... but none that reasonably explain why the crime rate is the same despite massively harsher penalties.

Look, criminals are bad people who do hurtful things. You want them to hurt and suffer in response: that's natural. In fact, it's very human. We have vengeance hard-wired into our DNA, because when we were evolving it was a key component of social behavior: societies that punished societal transgressors succeeded over ones that didn't.

But we're not in hunter-gatherer tribes anymore! We have these big brains that we also evolved. So either you can stick with your evolved gut vengeance motivation ... or you can use your big evolved human brain to actually look at the studies, and think logically.

Seriously, have whatever political beliefs you want, and want criminals to suffer whatever harsh penalties you can imagine ... but also live in and understand reality. In reality, in general (obviously this doesn't hold true for every crime/punishment) harsher penalties simply don't deter criminals from committing crimes

Those difference might play a significant role. You can’t just look at penalties and rates in a vacuum IMO, or I’m sure we can do that for a lot of other factors when it comes to offending and make ridiculous correlations

Justice is different from vengeance to me

Again, I feel like I’m a broken record here, but in REALITY, prisons are not effective at rehabilitation, because permanently transforming a sociopath into a good citizen is really fucking hard. So because they are not rehabilitated, it’s safer for the public for them to be in prison and away from them longer

[Lune]

Prisons not being effective at rehabilitation means all the more reason not to let them rot in there on the taxpayer dime for years and years before they eventually come out and commit another crime.

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because there are no other differences between the populations of 2 possibly very different states that might factor into those rates. Of course

Statisticians know how to control for variables as simple as two different states. I take it you have never learned statistics and are poo-pooing one of humanity's most powerful tools blindly. The causality of long term sentencing is pretty clear which is why most places in the US aren't doing it anymore.