Thanks for the piece. It made me think. And I concluded that I come at things quite differently. Arbitary, unaccountable imprisonment is illiberal, which I'm sure all liberals would agree upon, but imprisonment within a structured, accountable, rules based system is not, because the decision to commit a crime and suffer the known consequences of imprisonment is a choice of free agency. It is extremley easy not to commit a crime worthy of prison.
Therefore no infringement of their free agency has taken place, when they have freely chosen to relinquish it.
My liberal concerns about prison are of effectiveness - is it a deterrent? Does it reduce reoffending? Does it keep the public safe from certain people? And on those questions, I share your concern about wellbeing because I value rehabilitation rather than punishment as my guiding principle. And prison is probably not the best environment for rehabilitation.
Prison is for the purpose of retribution and restitution. We are all born to equal status but it can be forfeited. Ideally, prison would be a lot harder, and, indeed, required forced labour. And I'm with Locke and Kant - big time liberals - in favouring the death penalty too.
If we could definitively prove that defensive shmisons reduced absolute crime levels through deterrence and rehabilitation better than prisons did with retribution and restitution would you still hold this position? In other words, would you accept more crime to uphold your stated principles?
Your post made me realise I care more about punishment than I thought I did. I too am theoretically uncomfortable with the idea of punishment for retribution, but I suspect I would hold this position until I am a victim. If the victim requires retribution, and cannot adjust to the fact of the crime without it, isn’t there something illiberal about not allowing them this opportunity? The victim’s freedom would be constrained. One example (but a bad one because I happen to think she is more likely to be innocent than guilty) would be Lucy Letby. If she is guilty I think we could make the case she is not a threat since she’d never be employed again, and we’d free her from shmison. But this is of course completely unsatisfactory for most people, given the crime.
I greatly enjoyed reading this piece. Speaking from experience, I can say unequivocally that there are people who for defensive reasons, to use your terminology, need to be imprisoned. That doesn't mean they need to be imprisoned in a cruel or inhuman environment, but it does mean that they need to be put into a lengthy, and perhaps permanent, timeout. Being in the box is punishment enough, whether it be with cushy (and I'm making wildly liberal, and very relative, use of the word "cushy") accommodations or no.
During my time inside I came across three general types of incarcerated people. The first, as described above, are those who absolutely need to be incarcerated (perhaps 10-20%, speaking roughly). I met, and lived with, people who were unrepentant for committing the most vile and harmful crimes you could imagine—and their lack of penitence (in some cases, joyful recollection) for having done such is justification alone that they are too dangerous to be let out again. The second, the largest of the three groups, of those who would not need to be incarcerated IF they received needed treatment/education/vocational training (perhaps 50-60% of prisoners). Finally, the remaining group is those who fundamentally do not need to be incarcerated to either 1. protect the public or 2. prevent them from committing future crimes (perhaps 20-30%).
Regardless of the "true" split between these groups, there are hundreds of thousands of people who should be considered low-hanging-fruit when it comes to reducing the prison population. Should there be punishment for their crimes? Yes, I happen to believe in punishment as a response to crime - but it is an ancillary measure and not the primary one. Public safety and rehabilitation of the offender should be the primary concerns, not satisfying a desire for vengeance via punitive means. The prison system, and its reformers, are faced with the unenviable task of dealing with the existence of actual, rapacious malice, while creating a pathway to redeem those who could otherwise be saved from their worst impulses. Thank you for lending your voice to that conversation while recognizing the magnitude of the task at hand.
Shame is an important punitive element which functions by treating all criminals homogeneously. Home detention might encourage a "two tier" way of thinking where eg a martha stewart might deny they even did something wrong, and it was all just a big misunderstanding. Or for example p Diddy - treating them "the same" as other wrongdoers sends an important signal that the rules do not discriminate in favour of the rich. I think this is harder to achieve with shmisons etc
Thanks for the piece. It made me think. And I concluded that I come at things quite differently. Arbitary, unaccountable imprisonment is illiberal, which I'm sure all liberals would agree upon, but imprisonment within a structured, accountable, rules based system is not, because the decision to commit a crime and suffer the known consequences of imprisonment is a choice of free agency. It is extremley easy not to commit a crime worthy of prison.
Therefore no infringement of their free agency has taken place, when they have freely chosen to relinquish it.
My liberal concerns about prison are of effectiveness - is it a deterrent? Does it reduce reoffending? Does it keep the public safe from certain people? And on those questions, I share your concern about wellbeing because I value rehabilitation rather than punishment as my guiding principle. And prison is probably not the best environment for rehabilitation.
Prison is for the purpose of retribution and restitution. We are all born to equal status but it can be forfeited. Ideally, prison would be a lot harder, and, indeed, required forced labour. And I'm with Locke and Kant - big time liberals - in favouring the death penalty too.
If we could definitively prove that defensive shmisons reduced absolute crime levels through deterrence and rehabilitation better than prisons did with retribution and restitution would you still hold this position? In other words, would you accept more crime to uphold your stated principles?
Your post made me realise I care more about punishment than I thought I did. I too am theoretically uncomfortable with the idea of punishment for retribution, but I suspect I would hold this position until I am a victim. If the victim requires retribution, and cannot adjust to the fact of the crime without it, isn’t there something illiberal about not allowing them this opportunity? The victim’s freedom would be constrained. One example (but a bad one because I happen to think she is more likely to be innocent than guilty) would be Lucy Letby. If she is guilty I think we could make the case she is not a threat since she’d never be employed again, and we’d free her from shmison. But this is of course completely unsatisfactory for most people, given the crime.
I greatly enjoyed reading this piece. Speaking from experience, I can say unequivocally that there are people who for defensive reasons, to use your terminology, need to be imprisoned. That doesn't mean they need to be imprisoned in a cruel or inhuman environment, but it does mean that they need to be put into a lengthy, and perhaps permanent, timeout. Being in the box is punishment enough, whether it be with cushy (and I'm making wildly liberal, and very relative, use of the word "cushy") accommodations or no.
During my time inside I came across three general types of incarcerated people. The first, as described above, are those who absolutely need to be incarcerated (perhaps 10-20%, speaking roughly). I met, and lived with, people who were unrepentant for committing the most vile and harmful crimes you could imagine—and their lack of penitence (in some cases, joyful recollection) for having done such is justification alone that they are too dangerous to be let out again. The second, the largest of the three groups, of those who would not need to be incarcerated IF they received needed treatment/education/vocational training (perhaps 50-60% of prisoners). Finally, the remaining group is those who fundamentally do not need to be incarcerated to either 1. protect the public or 2. prevent them from committing future crimes (perhaps 20-30%).
Regardless of the "true" split between these groups, there are hundreds of thousands of people who should be considered low-hanging-fruit when it comes to reducing the prison population. Should there be punishment for their crimes? Yes, I happen to believe in punishment as a response to crime - but it is an ancillary measure and not the primary one. Public safety and rehabilitation of the offender should be the primary concerns, not satisfying a desire for vengeance via punitive means. The prison system, and its reformers, are faced with the unenviable task of dealing with the existence of actual, rapacious malice, while creating a pathway to redeem those who could otherwise be saved from their worst impulses. Thank you for lending your voice to that conversation while recognizing the magnitude of the task at hand.
Shame is an important punitive element which functions by treating all criminals homogeneously. Home detention might encourage a "two tier" way of thinking where eg a martha stewart might deny they even did something wrong, and it was all just a big misunderstanding. Or for example p Diddy - treating them "the same" as other wrongdoers sends an important signal that the rules do not discriminate in favour of the rich. I think this is harder to achieve with shmisons etc