Is it time to re-introduce mass incarceration?

We're discussing cultural zero tolerance. As in the day to day practice of social pressure to behave.

I once lived in a large village (in the third world) wherein theft was punished by removal of a hand in the first instance. A second infraction saw loss of the other hand, and the third death. There was no theft in that village. The last incident anyone could remember was a generation earlier. No police, no laws .. only carefully considered and time-tested pressure to behave. It was the safest I'd ever felt in my life, incidentally. No one locked anything. Women were safe in the streets at night, and children were respected and watched over by everyone in the village.

The rebels did not stay, choosing instead to find homes where sociopathy and defiance were tolerated.

 

I am not the type of person, normally, to use words that are outside of my ken, or that are not customary to my speech; there is a word that I have seen others, here, drop a bit casually-- as if more for its implications, than its true meaning-- but which, though it is not a word I would typically use, I feel truly defines your post: bloviation.

I can certainly say that those were a bunch of words, you wrote, that sound good (stop crime before it happens-- wow! what a concept!); what you are actually suggesting, however, I would defy anyone to interpret.

 

If your own culture is deeply wedded to the 'hands free' approach, then you wouldn't understand. You have no context for social obligation and esponsibility.

 

As is often the case, I have no idea what you are talking about as, clearly, neither do you. I can only guess that you are referring to disciplining children, with physical violence. I don't know what you are saying by "if your own culture is deeply wedded to...;" is that just an incredibly awkward and muddled way of saying, if you don't believe in hitting kids? If so, I would not say that I was deeply wedded to it, as I think a modicum of physical contact is allowable; however, I do not believe in serious beatings, as this only inculcates children into a culture of violence, or has other negative psychological impacts, upon them.

But, regardless, your comments are still nothing but hot air, because how are you suggesting it would be reasonable to believe we could turn back the clock, in that regard? IOW, you offer no solution, or anything remotely helpful-- you essentially are just saying, "Back in my day..."
Well bully, for you. I'm sure it was a typo, but "e-sponsibility" didn't come before Gen X, and more likely not until the Millennials' generation.

As for the idea that beating one's (or one's neighbors') children, not only creates a greater sense of social obligation & responsibility, but is the only foundation at all, for these, is just horsefeathers. It is certainly something that anyone here would expect the advocate to back up, with a credible argument. But I have seen that you do not generally consider this, part of your debate forum obligation.

Anecdotally, I can say that my mother's father was prone to physical violence, and I have witnessed how it left my mother incapable of accepting that anything is her fault; that is, she is still like a child, trying to avoid a beating, by being ever ready to argue that she is blameless, for any circumstance that arises. My mom left home early, joining the army, in order to "escape." She later had 4 children, that pushed her to the point of desperation, at her inability to deal with all that entailed. And her marriage was venomous, which created a toxic atmosphere, and provided we four with no example of a healthy relationship.

 

Did you take drugs or something, before typing that? You veered way out into some personal fantasy, so I need to ask.

I'm sorry that you think the only way to raise decent and honourable children is by 'hitting' them. Probably a product of your own upbringing or culture. Quite a western thing, hitting kids. Strange.

I'm guessing you're not aware that other cultures don't need to resort to violence, because their kids don't overstep the mark in the first place. They learn from day one that parents are in charge - via parental MODELLING, not parental violence. When parents are respectful, consistent, diligent, and in control of themselves, kids have enough healthy respect not to break rules. Kids respect respectability - automatically, and from a very young age. They can also spot BS from a mile away. A parent who showers their kid with affection and agreeability, but models no consistency, self-discipline, or diligence .. will create a disrespectful monster.

 

It does, America is an incredibly diverse country and whilst that is a wonderful thing it also sometimes leads to conflict. The gap between rich and poor in Denmark is very small, great in the US. And yes they have a homogeneous culture to a large degree for good or ill.

 

We reduced the gap between rich and poor before. It was one part contributing to things getting a lot better.

We've done the other things as well, improving education, working on the damage slavery created, etc, etc.

The Karens of the Right do love their excuses..

 

So what do you want to cut off?

And how do you plan on sneaking it past anyone that knows about "cruel and unusual" since you want both?

 

There are a lot of extremely wealthy and influential people who will soon need to be incarcerated at the same time.......
because they are simply too deadly....and too influential to allow them to run around hiring whoever they want to hire......
to do whatever they want done.........

Apparently it costs about thirty four million dollars to buy a Premier in Australia and I am sure that similar numbers will soon be coming out for here in Canada as well.....

 

What is truly regrettable, is that you are so completely disingenuously dishonest, in seemingly everything you spew, on this forum. Adding to your shamefulness, you do this not simply in pursuit of proving some point, but to attempt to assassinate other posters' characters.

My post then, is for the benefit of sincere readers, who are willing to think for themselves, so that they may see whether it seems reasonable to regard me, henceforth, as a drug-addled advocate for parents beating discipline into their children, or, to understand that there is no reason to take as serious, or truthful, anything they ever read from you.

Here was your post:

crank said: ↑
If your own culture is deeply wedded to the 'hands free' approach, then you wouldn't understand. You have no context for social obligation and (r)esponsibility.


And here is my reply:

DEFinning said: ↑
As is often the case, I have no idea what you are talking about as, clearly, neither do you. I can only guess that you are referring to disciplining children, with physical violence...


In having to try to figure out what the hell you could mean by "a hands free approach," as it would relate to "social obligation and (r)esponsibility," I feel mine was a very reasonable conjecture, that this had been the meaning of your (signature style) unclear language. But you now affect the pretense that it was me, who was a believer in "hitting," when my post had, in truth, been holding you to account, for suggesting such a thing.

So let's see, after your casting aspersions at me, how you claim your initial "hands free" comment, should have been read:

Interestingly, this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the use of HANDS.

So I'm guessing, you are just playing your usual game, of cloaking your claims, which you probably realize will be controversial, in obscure terminology. Then, when someone reacts against your suggestion, you try to pin your own feelings, on that replier. That this is your idea, of a worthwhile way to spend your time, and that you apparently get some gratification from it, IMO, speaks very poorly of you, as a human being.

 

I know this is a popular belief with many people. I am not going to wade in on this one way or the other but has anyone considered the extra cost?

Let's ignore that for now and do some basic math:
The average cost of incarnating someone in the US is about $34,000 per year.
We have 2.3 million incarnated people in the US.
There were 150 million tax returns filed.
So 2.3/150 X 34K = $521 average per tax return filed. Now remember we have a progressive tax system so the wealthy will bear a much greater percentage of the cost but incarceration requires a lot of tax dollars. We already incarcerate more people than any other nation. If you want to increase this you are essentially supporting raising taxes. One final note. This is only the price of incarceration. It does not include the price of law enforcement or the legal system that supports it.

If the Prison Policy Initiatives numbers are correct. The actual cost would be 182B / 150 M = $1213 per tax return filed. Either way the number is high. Would you support a tax increases to fund more prisons and greater incarcerations in addition to this amount?

 

Is that what happened in the 1990s?
I concede you'll have to cut spending elsewhere, raise taxes or borrow more if we bring back mass incarceration. But I'd think mass incarceration would bring down crime through deterrence so that the bill would be smaller. What it might save in lives and property would far exceed the costs.
We do need a lot of work done in our society. I feel like you can climb the economic ladder, but the first rung is several feet off the ground.
You want people to say no to crime, you have to have something to say yes to. That means fixing our job market.
But you also have to make career crime too expensive to bother with.

 

I have no idea what was happening in the 90s. I was way too young to care back then and never looked into the history. It wouldn't surprise me if all of the incarceration cost is part of our debt now. The older generation loved to spend and push the burden down to future generations to worry about. Just look at SS as another example. Problem is we are in so much debt now I don't think that strategy works for the future generations.

Everyone is willing to cut spending as long as it is not on things that impact them. I have always proposed cutting SS payments to match what is available in the pool. Instead we raise everyone's payment who is currently working to support those that are not.

 

Everyone now drawing SS worked to pay for the generation they followed. That's how it works.

 

I don't want to hijack this thread by turning it into another debate on SS. There have been many of these in the past and I have made my views clear.

SS was just an example of how we do not cut spending to match what is available but instead we tax more or go into more debt. Everyone who wants more stuff simply says to cut spending but they are only willing to cut spending on things they personally do not want and a compromise is never reached. Our $30 trillion debt is a testament to that.

 

Lets face reality. Look at all the people that advocated for more incarceration. I think the majority of those would call themselves conservatives. How many even paused for a minute and asked how much will it cost and where will the money come from. How many took a moment to google the current expenditures. We already spend somewhere between $80-182 Billion a year in incarceration cost.

 

The crime bill was passed in 1994 and our deficits declined right up to 9/11, so this idea about incarceration being a big money loser seems like a red herring. I don't think this is about dollars and cents. If you oppose jailing criminals, just say it. The idea that it would be OK except for the cost...sorry I don't buy it. Are you one of the "defund the police" people? Police cost money and it's cheaper to do without them.

 

"Is it time to re-introduce mass incarceration?"

can we start with the Trump admin?

 

That's an example, Dude. But it's a good one, because it shows how simple it is to achieve a desired social goal. In that parituclar case it was zero crime. Other cultures may not go that far on crime, but might go hard on some other antisocial behaviour.

As for your personal comfort with the lengths that are necessary .. not relevant. If you want a well behaved society, that's what it takes. Those who can't abide 'restrictions' will create less socially responsible communities - and in so doing, forfeit the right to complain about crime and chaos.

 

Hasn't the debt been approximately doubling every 10 years since 1990?

Also during Clinton's presidency didn't he greatly increase taxes and reduce military spending?

 

That's such a ridiculous reply that I think I must have hit a nerve. I think you probably are one of the "defund the police" types.

I guess you think there are no costs to letting crime run wild.

 

You hit no nerve. What you see is my indifference. Just because I choose not to let you bait me into a ridiculous topic such as "defund the police" based on nothing more than sheer speculation of my position on your part. Go back and re-read my post and try to construct a logical path between what I have written in this thread to defunding the police. I am simply advocating fiscal responsibility.

You think my reply was ridiculous yet the first part addressed your claimed a declining deficit in the 90s. Whereas the data shows the deficit nearly doubled from 1990 to 2000. My next statement address your vague connection about incarceration from the 90s not being a money loser. I originally asked others how they plan to pay for the increase incarceration cost. My position is that most likely it requires an increase in taxes or increase in debt since we have no seen very little compromises that have led to a decrease in spending. I answered your reference to the 90s in that Clinton both raised taxes and lowered spending on the military and welfare during his presidency. The economic situation has changed greatly since then. Increasing taxes would be a hard sell right now and I see no hope on the two parties agreeing on a cut in spending.

To be honest I had always respected what you had to say in the past. I may not always agree but your arguments seem rational and well thought out. Now I see you throwing around baseless accusations with zero evidence?

 

Maybe they should have special cities where they should send them. Britain used to send its criminals to Australia.
The U.S. has all sorts of areas where people don't want to live.

Maybe we, as a society, need to think up some better ways of moving criminals away and setting them apart from the rest of society, without having to totally take away their freedom.

Prison is being used as a one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter solution.

 

Where are these uninhabited lands in the US where nobody wants to live?

 

It's not "zero evidence," it's speculation based on the this issue, incarceration, being a problem to you not because of any policy concerns but simply because of cost. Now, if your response to virtually every other issue had been a hard pass because of cost, I would get it. But I don't recall you ever using that reason to oppose a policy. Could you point out where you opposed giving any a single dime to keeping the Ukraine war going because of cost?