Thank you, Oldschool, George Lakoff has become one of my favourite thinkers since you introduced me to him a few weeks ago. Have watched all his You Tube videos and am keen to get a few of his books. :-)
There are two theories of management. The X theory and the Y theory. The X theory motivates by love. The Y theory by fear. They both work. The trick is knowing when to apply which to whom and when.
Thank you. I am not at all sure that punishment does work giving the incredibly high statistics on recidivism in a punitive prison system - around 80%. There are other models elsewhere in the world where offenders and criminals go through different forms of re-education and these tend to have a recidivism rate of around 20%.
@Louie -- Your X and Y management theories map directly on to the Strict Father and Nurturing Parent metaphors of governance (as described in the Lakoff video I posted above).
The XY Theory, although generally referring to a corporate environment, has universal applicability. Properly understood and applied, there's no reason why it couldn't be used in a prison environment. Its use, or something very much like it, probably explains the 20% rate you quoted for some models.
Do you have a reference where I can loo up the XY theory. I believe, from what you suggest, that in may be in accord with the kind of thinking I prefer - an example of which is Marshall Rosenberg's NVC, easy to check out under that name on U-Tube and various websites. Most of it, except for the professional training, is available free.
It came out of the management program at MIT. I'm sure if you just google XY Theory you'll get oodles of sites, and you can pick from there. Good luck.
Hmm. It is true that some people cause harm that cannot be tolerated. However, the present conventional system makes 80% of its inmates into worse criminals by the time they get released. Some experimental trials in Iceland, Tasmania and India have proven at least three different ways to reduce the rate of re-offending to 20% by using variously: meditation, using work, decent treatment, education, counselling and active assistance with getting employment after the sentence ends. In prison, it is enough that the punishment involves loss of freedom and separation from society - but the current system is more cruel to inmates than would be permitted in treatment of animals in cages.
@bhwilson -- But if we're nice to Mr. Manson while simultaneously isolating him from society, he poses no threat to us.
Moreover, do you wish to imply that ALL criminals are as bloodthirsty as Mr. Manson? If so, we might as well impose the death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk and be done with it.
I am using Mr. Manson as an extreme example of a bad guy. I'm sure Charles and I could hang out together and get along except for political differences. Well ----- he is still a loonie.
We punish people because revenge feels good. Lemme ask you this. If you had a caged dog that you constantly poked with a sharp stick, would you EVER let him out to play with the kiddies??
We do that with people all the time. We send them to prison, not AS punishment, but FOR punishment.. And, the guards are more than happy to INFLICT it. Then we put them back on the street and tell them to have a nice life. It's kinda stupid, really
excon
This post was edited by excon at January 7, 2017 12:59 PM MST
If animals were treated as human prisoners are in the conventional prison system, I would report the owners for animal cruelty and the RSPCA would sue them and win. In my view, the time in gaol should offer opportunities for work, education and if necessary, counselling. Vipassana meditation has also proved amazingly effective in India's largest prison of 5,000 of its worst offenders.
That is the unfortunate truth. Most people are will not or cannot take the 30 seconds to think about criminal punishment and reach the understanding that its real purpose in modern society is deterrence. Once we actually have to punish a criminal, we've failed and have to deal with the messy consequences of that failure.
Alas, most of our beliefs about criminal punishment are wired into genetic proclivities and cultural metaphors which have been rendered obsolete by the realities of modern society. Continuing to argue from those legacies is much easier (both cognitively and emotionally) than doing the hard Type-2 thinking about the purpose/costs/benefits of legal criminal punishment.
There are five possible purposes to the punishment of criminals:
1. Incapacitation: A felon in prison cannot commit crimes while imprisoned. An executed felon cannot commit a crime ever again.
2. Deterrence: The threat of punishment deters people from engaging in illegal acts.
3. Restitution: The felon is required to take some action to at least partially return the victim to the status quo ante.
4. Retribution: The felon harmed society; therefore society (or the direct victims) is entitled to inflict harm in return.
5. Rehabilitation: The punishment changes the felon in order to make him a better citizen afterwards. (The punishment can include mandatory vocational training, counseling, drug treatment, etc.)
In order for a punishment to be justified, it must satisfy at least one of these criteria. (There may be reasons to oppose a punishment even if it does satisfy these criteria, so this is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition.)
@TJ -- I must beg to differ with the author of your linked page.
1) Incapacitation is not relevant. Sure, a released criminal MIGHT commit another crime. But any Joe/Jane on the street MIGHT commit a crime. We don't imprison/punish people for what they MIGHT do.
3) Restitution is not the provence of criminal punishment (that's what civil torts are for). Moreover, there is NO restitution for many crimes. If a criminal kills or injures someone, there is NO way to return the person to the pre-crime state. Yes, some punishments might include some resitution (e.g. If I steal your goat, I have to return the goat AND pay a fine/do jail time), but merely returning the goat is NOT punishment.
4) Retribution is NOT a valid reason for punishment EXCEPT insofar as it serves deterrence. As the expression goes, an eye for an eye eventually ends up blinding everyone.
5) Rehabilitation is NOT punishment. It is a crime PREVENTION measure. (Some) societies recognize that many criminals have such poor prospects, the deterrent threat of criminal punishment doesn't affect them. Providing those criminals better prospects than being punished again gives them incentive to avoid further crimes.
In the end, I argue the ONLY legitimate function of criminal punishment is to deter crime. Once the deterrent effet fails, everything else is damage mitigation.
OldSchoolTheSKOSlives 