A broken system?

[Morkeliph]

It seems that one of the big arguments in our society is what to do about our penal system. Jails are exceeding their capacities and released convicts seem to always find their way back into the "slammer." Some argue that inprisonment onlt puts hardened criminals together, creating a sort of school for criminality. What is to be done? What is the root of this problem? How can crime be minimized at minimal cost and maximum efficacy?

Personally, I believe that the system is broken, but I believe that it always was broken. From the start we've been trying to manage criminal behavior through punishment, be it inprisonment, fines, loss of priviledges, firing, the death penalty, and the like. Even the term penal system has the implications of penalty. Why are we so hell-bent on punishing "bad" behavior as opposed to rewarding "good" behavior? Punishment is automatically reinforcing. It's reinforcing because it works immediately, if not in the long term. A parent who spanks their screaming child is more likely to try spanking in the future in it results in the child shutting-up. The same goes for "time-out," which isn't far off from society's inprisonment. But what would happen if instead of merely punishing criminal behavior we also formally rewarded legal and safe behavior? Would motivation and general obedience increase?

What I believe is important to consider is how criminal behavior may be socially conditioned. What are factors of social environment are causing and contributing to criminal behavior, and what can we do to change them? I think too often we avoid looking at the real problem because the punishment method is so immediately reinforcing and it's a lot easier to blame criminal behavior on bad parenting and rotten personality.

[Valjean]

I think that we need to make a lot of smaller, more spread out prisons so that there will be less criminal diversity and mingling happening, thus creating a limited spread of criminal knowledge. We also need to focus more on rehabilitation, education and reward than punishment, as you have already said.

Perhaps later I will elaborate more.

[singo]

I dont think people should be rewarded simply for not doing bad things. Now, going out of their way to do something GOOD then maybe.

Personally I have never seen prisons a a method of punishing prisoners except as a secondary "side effect" as it were, I have seen them as a way to get the buggers off the streets so they cant commit any crimes for the durration of their sentence.

Rehabilitations and reintegration is all very well, but it doesnt work. We have been and are trying it over here in Great Britain, and most people that get a sentence that involves rehabilitation, probation or any of that kind of thing simply re-offend.

All that is needed is to stop lawyers getting guilty people off the hook on a technicality.

And maybe the death penalty for pushers of Class - A drugs would help seeing as how a lot of problems society-wise stem from drug addiction.

[GenocideAlive]

Rewarding a random, subjective "good behavior" is a joke--more like rewarding people that have jobs but are living under the poverty level is a worthwhile venture. The root of this problem is that the prison system gives the impression of failure through statistics and close examination while actually possessing causation elsewhere. Like poverty.

I can agree that in some contexts prison serves as a "school", but it's not a very effective one. It's more of a socialization of criminal behavior than it is a learning experience. And the fact that repeat offenders are far to abundant isn't because we need to triple our prison system budget to plead with these people, but rather because criminality is its own reward in the context of poverty.

One scenario to $30,000/year: Study in HS, get good grades. Apply for college, find a way to pay for it, get good grades. Get out, get a job.
Total time: 4+ years.
Total cost: $5k-50k.
Total work investment: Light to heavy.
Total job security: Iffy.
Total risk: Zero.
Criminal record allowed: Little.

Two scenario to $30,000/year: Develop a small-time criminal network, and push drugs.
Total time: None.
Total cost: None.
Total work investment: Zero to light.
Total job security: Very iffy.
Total risk: Extremely high.
Criminal record allowed: Preferred.

In summary: It's always easier to smash a window and steal than it is to work for $5.75 an hour for 60 hours to earn it. There are some people who figure that out and can't get it out of their head; especially since there's always a chance you could get away with it scot-free.

[Morkeliph]

It is true that crime seems to be the easy way. Why then do some people resort to crime and others do not. Surely, poverty (level of deprivation) has a role, as do other social circumstances. Socialization (history of reinforcement) also has a role. Perhaps lack of self-control (the Ainslie-Rachlin principle, see below) also plays a part. All of these contributors must be taken into account and dealt with individually.

I don't know that reinforcement of desired behavior is a joke. Why do you work for a wage? Isn't your wage a conditioned reinforcer that you recieve contingent on your being at work? Look how money has come to control how you behave in many instances. I think on some level, there probably is a way to influence individuals' behavior towards legality, though I do not pretend to know exactly how. What I propose is greater punishment for criminal behavior with formal reinforcement for productive, legal behavior. I am not suggesting the reinforcement of any non-criminal behavior, but the reinforcement of beneficial behavior, beneficial to society and in the the long-term to the individual.I can agree that in some contexts prison serves as a "school", but it's not a very effective one. It's more of a socialization of criminal behavior than it is a learning experience. And the fact that repeat offenders are far to abundant isn't because we need to triple our prison system budget to plead with these people, but rather because criminality is its own reward in the context of poverty.
Isn't socialization a form of learning? I agree that criminality is it's own reward in the context of poverty, or even in wealth. Criminal behavior is typically immediately reinforcing, whereas legal behavior involves delayed reinforcement.

The Ainslie-Rachlin principle states that the value of a reinforcer decreases as the amount of time between its contingent behavior increases. In other words, the allure of a lesser, immediate reinforcer is often greater than that of a greater, delayed reinforcer. We exhibit impulsivity when we choose the lesser, immediate reinforcer (like in crime); we exhibit self-control when we choose the greater, delayed reinforcer (as in attending college).

[GenocideAlive]

It is true that crime seems to be the easy way. Why then do some people resort to crime and others do not. Surely, poverty (level of deprivation) has a role, as do other social circumstances.
Morals and desperation, which is closely tied to upbringing and circumstance respectively. If you were raised hardcore Christian, you're probably not going to steal. If your mother is sick and needs medicine, you'd probably steal it to relieve her pain and suffering no matter your upbringing. Drugs typically cause a very skewed perception of the latter.
I don't know that reinforcement of desired behavior is a joke. Why do you work for a wage? Isn't your wage a conditioned reinforcer that you recieve contingent on your being at work?
I work for a wage because I don't want to go to jail; I also value the security and the consistency. I believe I could make it criminally, but I don't consider the risk worth the possibility of gain. If I were single, I probably wouldn't even value the security and consistency as much. You make a lot of assumptions, sometimes; that's not good for a scientist.
Isn't socialization a form of learning?
Let's say your car is broken and you're not sure what's wrong with it. Would you rather be stuck in a room full of mechanics or would you rather have some books and a teacher? If you trust that you can comptetently describe the problem, maybe you'd want the room. But all-in-all, I think it could be argued that you're technically not learning anything, but rather relying on others. And yes, I know what you're trying to say with this question, but I think you're going a little out of context with it.

I'm not sure you can attribute the willingness of people to take lesser, immediate reward as "impulsivity". Immediately the phrase "One in the hand is worth two in the bush" comes to mind. It seems like that's more of a Darwinistic trait than a folly of mankind, etc. I think an experiment with lizards (whom is endowed with nothing more than an amigdala) would illustrate that clearly; I seriously doubt a hungry lizard would bypass a meal for any reason.

[Morkeliph]

Morals and desperation, which is closely tied to upbringing and circumstance respectively. If you were raised hardcore Christian, you're probably not going to steal. If your mother is sick and needs medicine, you'd probably steal it to relieve her pain and suffering no matter your upbringing.Your explanations are somewhat echoic of mine, though worded mentalistically. Your "upbringing" I interpret as "history of reinforcement," and my "level of deprivation" resembles your "desperation."I don't know that reinforcement of desired behavior is a joke. Why do you work for a wage? Isn't your wage a conditioned reinforcer that you recieve contingent on your being at work?I work for a wage because I don't want to go to jail; I also value the security and the consistency. I believe I could make it criminally, but I don't consider the risk worth the possibility of gain. If I were single, I probably wouldn't even value the security and consistency as much. You make a lot of assumptions, sometimes; that's not good for a scientist.For one, I have never claimed to be a scientist, merely an advocate for it. Secondly, you apparently did not understand the question. Saying that your wage is a condtioned reinforcer contingent upon being at work simply means that you only get paid with money (the conditioned reinforcer) if you go to work. Assuming that pay increases you work attendance, then money is indeed a reinforcer. Your desire to stay out of jail is avoidance behavior caused by the aversive stimulus of going to jail (a potential negative punisher). In this case, the punisher is sufficient to deter you from crime, probably because your level of deprivation isn't high enough but also due to your history of reinforcement for productive legal behavior. These, of course, are possiblities in your case, but what I mean to discuss is how the socializing methods that keep you from criminality can be applied to other people and society in general, in effort to lower the general rate of criminality.Let's say your car is broken and you're not sure what's wrong with it. Would you rather be stuck in a room full of mechanics or would you rather have some books and a teacher? If you trust that you can comptetently describe the problem, maybe you'd want the room. But all-in-all, I think it could be argued that you're technically not learning anything, but rather relying on others. And yes, I know what you're trying to say with this question, but I think you're going a little out of context with it.I don't see how this example applied to the jail system? Perhaps you should do some research on imitation and observational learning.I'm not sure you can attribute the willingness of people to take lesser, immediate reward as "impulsivity". Immediately the phrase "One in the hand is worth two in the bush" comes to mind. It seems like that's more of a Darwinistic trait than a folly of mankind, etc. I think an experiment with lizards (whom is endowed with nothing more than an amigdala) would illustrate that clearly; I seriously doubt a hungry lizard would bypass a meal for any reason.Indeed it is a evolutionary trait, and you're very perceptive to pick up on that. It has also been shown that self-control can be trained in rats, pigeons, monkeys, and other animals. That is, training an animal to make a commitment response that enables them to receive the larger, delayed reinforcer without being tempted by the lesser, immediate reinforcer. In fact, the animals do this without any real prompting.

[GenocideAlive]

I don't see how this example applied to the jail system? Perhaps you should do some research on imitation and observational learning.
If you're going to be an ass I'm going to abandon attempting to discuss with you; it's easy enough to say "I don't see how this applies", or "I think you're wrong based on..." I don't really need your snotty attitude saying "perhaps you should educate yourself before making analogies that I don't understand". What criminal behavior are they imitating in jail? What observational learning? You can't learn how to steal from a store, you can't learn how to break laws, your only applications are for socialization and rule-breaking within a prison. I hardly think those will teach someone a life of crime on the outside--skills based on making and hiding a shank out of a toothbrush are useless if you can just buy a knife and stick it in your pocket. SIMILARLY, jail only provides a social network for your understanding of your problems, much like the "room full of mechanics". It doesn't invariably provide you with specific knowledge or an applicable-skills basis for crime on the outside.
Indeed it is a evolutionary trait, and you're very perceptive to pick up on that. It has also been shown that self-control can be trained in rats, pigeons, monkeys, and other animals.
All of which possess higher learning capabilities and the potential for emotions based on their brain development. I daresay without any further knowledge on the subject that only more evolved lizards would even have a chance of eventually participating in this type of behavior based on their brain physiology. We possess an amigdala as well, and it's said that when we become more desperate we begin to revert to our more basic brain functions--devolving us into the use of our amigdala for survival. Thus, if you were poor and hungry, you would probably be operating off of a less developed part of your brain; so whether or not you'd been caught or positively reinforced elsewhere would probably have less of an impact.

[Morkeliph]

If you're going to be an ass I'm going to abandon attempting to discuss with you; it's easy enough to say "I don't see how this applies", or "I think you're wrong based on..." I don't really need your snotty attitude saying "perhaps you should educate yourself before making analogies that I don't understand". What criminal behavior are they imitating in jail? What observational learning? You can't learn how to steal from a store, you can't learn how to break laws, your only applications are for socialization and rule-breaking within a prison. I hardly think those will teach someone a life of crime on the outside--skills based on making and hiding a shank out of a toothbrush are useless if you can just buy a knife and stick it in your pocket. SIMILARLY, jail only provides a social network for your understanding of your problems, much like the "room full of mechanics". It doesn't invariably provide you with specific knowledge or an applicable-skills basis for crime on the outside.I forgot that helpful suggestion is actually insulting and rude, thanks for correcting me.

As to socialization in jail, do you deny that exclusive exposure to similarly conditioned individuals sets up an environment that reinforces criminal behavior? Criminal behavior may be nothing more than generalized disobedience to social rules, or non-conformity. While being in jail prohibits an individual from directly imitating others' behavior (which they observe through the verbal behavior of the other), there is still such a thing as delayed imitation. The jail system does nothing to teach generalized obedience to rule-governed behavior, but establishes an environment where disobedient behavior and reports of disobedient behavior may be socially reinforced by one's peers. Taking someone away from the contingencies in which they commit crime may physically prevent them from committing it again, but it does nothing to extinguish the criminal behavior. Once the individual is reexposed to the same contingencies, they will likely repeat the same criminal behavior as before, having never undergone extinction or having been similarly reinforced for using different methods (DRO).

As to being in a room full of mechanics, if they are fixing your car you can learn quite a bit from obervational learning. You will learn even further because of rule-governed behavior, assuming the mechanics explain what they are doing while they are doing it. Suppose the mechanics are not fixing your car in the present but are teaching you how to fix your car through instruction. These instructions are descriptions of the contingencies for proper auto-repair, making them rules. You would covertly perform these operations while listening to them, and later, when given the opportunity of working on your car, would likely attempt to carry them out overtly. Whether you are then skilled at it our not does not matter, the idea is that the rules and covertly imitated behavior have made engagement in this behavior more probable. This is one possible analogy for how criminal behavior may be socialized within the jail system, and I'm sure we could think of others. The point you appear to have missed is that jail systems (excluding solitary confinement) perpetuate the occurence of criminal behavior, whether it is effective behavior or not. Correct me if I'm not understanding you example properly, and please, don't take offense when none is intended. When it is intended, as above, feel free.

[BlueCloak]

As stated before, many prisoners do return to society as functioning members of society, but also no matter the amount that return to the street and restart their criminal activities again it is not good if 10 rapists return to the street and do not do not rape again, and then there is one that returns but continues. Capital punishment works in some cases, but not all. I think our country should focus more on education, and home wellness to prevent future criminaly behavior.

[Yoda]

I think that the system is wrong. Although the media tells us that it is in crisis, and that NOBODY should EVER be released on bail, because EVERYONE recommits, it is nowhere near that bad.

Prison should be much more reform than punishment. I have never been inside a prison nor read or seen any facts on what it is like in there apart from in movies. In the movies, it is by far a punishment system, where everyone is subject to violent behaviour of everyone else, and seems to gain it for themselves. You are not going to "reform" people who don't pay fines by dumping them with massmurderers. People should not be released if they intend commiting a crime again, but should be if everyone is certain that they will not. So for better "reformation" it would be much more effective to put a criminal with a bunch of good friendly people, but still in a jail or something, but of course that would cost too much.

[Morkeliph]

Personally, the trouble I see with our system is that it is too punitive. Like I stated before, punishment does not teach people what is acceptable behavior. What would be preferrable perhaps is a system that works almost like behavioral therapy. Not that all punishment is bad; some forms of punishment, especially for lesser crimes, work very effectively. However, for serious crimes, like murder, rape, etc., these people have severe behavioral problems that should be remedied before they can be released into society. Using a system that rewards them for becoming obedient while gradually reintroducing them into society might be more effective. A token economy like those used in "mental" institutions could be very effective here in training these individuals how to fuction in society. Instead, what we currently do is dump them in a human storage facility (prison) and let them rot in their criminal ways, along with others of their kind. How does that teach them how to function in their community? Hell, for some it may even be rewarding to be taken out of society and no longer subjected to society's various demands. Remember, punishment isn't punishment unless it reduces the target behavior.

[frazz]

One little quick thing. One of the problems about extensive crime is that, contrary to popular beleif spread by csi, law and order, etc., it is relatively easy to get away with crime if you do it right. Not all criminals are dumb enough to murder people in front of a security camera. It's sad, but true. About 1/2 of all murders go unsolved. If you're relatively smart and careful, and don't murder in Beaverly hills(however thats spelled) there's a decent chance you might not get caught.

Ignore the sig.

[Morkeliph]

Good point, and another reason why coercion and punishment for these crimes is ineffective. You can't effectively punish every instance of crime because you don't observe ever instance of crime. Just like in speeding; because people get away with it so often, the few times they are punished for it there's no real or lasting effect. Murderers who go uncaught don't get punished, and those instances where they might get close to being caught serve to shape them into better murderers. They learn effective ways of avoiding being caught and punished.

[UnHoly-Assassin]

Jail is simply a simple solution. It's a way to take dangerous criminals away from the streets; you wouldn't want to know that a serial killer whom murdered your parents is once again walking on the streets, now would you? To have a system whereas the arrested and charged criminals/felons are educated and reformed will be very costly, especially if most of the criminals/felons don't want to be reformed. Though, there currently are institutions for dangerous minds. Quadrupling the budget to help reform criminals are taking money away from good taxpayers...and practically giving them to the criminals. What the government should really try doing is strengthening their efforts to prevent people from becoming criminals; I've heard that England issues about 5k to every citizen in poverty annualy (Not sure if it's true), so that might be a really good system to help people get by. I say let them stay in jail. It's what they deserve, anyways.

[Morkeliph]

I don't think you have to increase budget much to create a reform program for criminals. Deny them priviledges such as food, water, heat, a bed, television, etc. unless they cooperate. Inhumane? So was murder and rape. Criminals who don't want to be reformed even under these circumstances are worthless and should be exterminated. It makes no sense to keep them locked up in human storage for years, keeping them alive for doing nothing and by using tax dollars. I don't think giving away free money to those in poverty helps them at all. It just makes being poor a little less aversive and it's money for doing nothing.

[Mindslaver]

A system is broken when incarceration is a superior alternative to poverty. An extremely impoverished person in the United States may realize that, with their current wages, they cannot make ends meet. Jails provide the means of subsistence to those inside them. The only people in the United States who are guaranteed health care are the people in prison. Why would you want to live as a poor person when you could commit a crime, go to jail, and have enough food, water, and shelter to be perfectly happy? The criminal record does not matter - a person of such dire straits would not be concerned with any ramifications of a criminal record.