Thread

1. boredatoms · 1790270522 · focus · HN ↗

   The US needs to get over this whole ‘punishment’ view of prison. It either a social-safety quarantine, or a rehabilitation

   1. mrits · 1790270740 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. Glemmlko · 1790271477 · focus · HN ↗

         No it shouldn't.

         It should be the understanding of a society that no human being is just 'bad'. A human being became 'bad' by a definiton of a society due to circumstances like upbringing, environment etc. and a society which failed you.

         Prison is the removal of you from society due to impatibility of current values and should help you become 'better'.

         Be happy that you had good/avg parents, the mental strength to help yourself, money, luck, body strength, whatever it was which allowed you to comment on HN instead of being in a prison.

         1. WalterBright · 1790271856 · focus · HN ↗

            > due to circumstances like upbringing, environment etc. and a society which failed you.

            It's always someone else's fault.

            1. Glemmlko · 1790272155 · focus · HN ↗

               Its a brain, a brain which gets teached how to act and behave.

               Some learn how to think critical, some don't. Some are intelligent, some are empathic, some don't understand the world very well.

               Don't simplify this by a snarky and ignorant comment.

               I'm not even against moving people out of our society, its fucked up enough that this is necessayr, but i'm against cruelty and i'm for helping.

               1. WalterBright · 1790274191 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Don't simplify this by a snarky and ignorant comment.

                  It is simple. People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong.

                  1. vidarh · 1790274664 · focus · HN ↗

                     Please do define free will, and try to do so in a way that a) gives people actual agency (define that while you're at it, and b) compatible with the available evidence of how the universe works.

                     1. WalterBright · 1790275136 · focus · HN ↗

                        You chose to write that post.

                        1. vidarh · 1790278984 · focus · HN ↗

                           So on other words you don't have an answer.

                           1. WalterBright · 1790284321 · focus · HN ↗

                              Everything you write is your free choice. And you know it.

                              1. vidarh · 1790288866 · focus · HN ↗

                                 No, I don't know it. In fact, I don't think there's any kind of evidence to suggest "free choice" is even possible for any kind of definition of "free choice" that doesn't make a mockery of the idea it is "free".

                                 I'm still waiting for a definition that could even suggest otherwise. I know I won't get one, because nobody I have this discussion with is ever capable of coming up with one.

                                 If you can't even define the terms, why do you imagine I should "know" it to be true?

                                 1. WalterBright · 1790369477 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Saying you have no free will absolves you of any responsibility for your actions. Call it the "Lindsay Clancy" defense. Human society cannot function with such notions.

                                    1. zzrrt · 1790382811 · focus · HN ↗

                                       The "Lindsay Clancy defense", AKA not guilty by reason of insanity, has roots going back thousands of years, and was used as early as 1844 in the US in the murder trial of Abner Rogers, Jr. In 1982, John Hinckley, Jr. used it after shooting at the president. Others have used it even after the post-Hinckley reforms. Yet society hasn't crumbled.

                                       Saying "He had no free will" doesn't mean "The state has no right to confine him away from people he might hurt."

                                       1. vidarh · 1790525116 · focus · HN ↗

                                          > Saying "He had no free will" doesn't mean "The state has no right to confine him away from people he might hurt."

                                          You get it.

                                          Saying "he had no free will" would mean there's no basis for using incarceration for vengeance, and it ought to change how prisoners are treated. It does not take away a legitimate need to lock people who remain a threat away. Nor does it entirely take away a justification for some use of incarceration as deterrent, to the limited extent it actually works.

                                          It just means a different calculation over how and when the harm done to those incarcerated outweigh the risks and harms to society of letting them go free, as well as a collective responsibility of society for addressing the conditions that causes these outcomes in the first place.

                                    2. vidarh · 1790524875 · focus · HN ↗

                                       Of course human society can function with such notions. For starters, we still have no evidence that supports "free" will, and human society manages to function just by blatantly ignoring it and holding on to what we have nothing to suggest is more than fiction.

                                       But a society that accepts that people have less or no actual agency would still have legitimate reasons to incarcerate, just fewer, and still has legitimate reasons for a criminal justice system, just with different priorities.

                                       E.g. protecting against genuine risks of reoffending is still a moral reason to incarcerate where there are no alternatives - maximising freedom means protecting people against real threats even if the person making up that threat is not able to choose differently.

                                       But if you accept that there is no free will, then the moral basis for conditions that amount to vengeance disappears. Society won't collapse over that - in fact, we know from the reoffending rates in places like Norway that treating prisoners better correlates strongly with less reoffending, and so even if you don't buy that there is no free will, it remains the most moral choice purely on the basis of lessening the suffering inflicted on the rest of society as well.

                                       If you accept there is no free will, most of the other logical consequences comes down to how you approach society as a whole, and how criminal justice changes is just a side effect: If people have no free will, then a whole lot of arguments use to e.g. deny benefits and welfare breaks down, and we arrive at a strong moral argument for improving conditions for the poor since we know poverty correlates strongly with more crime, which directly produces harm both for society as a whole and directly for the perpetrator and victims.

                                       None of this causes society to stop functioning. It just stops people using "free" will as an excuse to not to look for root causes and focus on what actually works to reduce offending and reoffending rates by hiding behind immoral ideas about moral hazards.

                                       P.S. I note you've still not tried to actually provide any argument for how free will could even potentially exist.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.