More impressed with changes to bail and what constitutes a misdemeanor and more. modifying the war on drugs to target those exploiting others instead of merely using would go a long way to meeting their lower incarceration numbers they want.
but let us not kid ourselves, those numbers are not majority small time offenders. a city that large has a good number of people not fit to be around the rest
Not specific to NYC, but the United States always seems to have plenty of money for the criminal justice system and incarceration, but relatively little for drug addiction rehab and treatment.
But look at the cost per day to keep one person in jail for a nonviolent drug offense...
There were lots of European countries were serious drug abuse problems in the 80s and many were able to solve them (Berlin, Amsterdam, and Switzerland all come to mind) with a range of policies on the supportive to punitive spectrum. I don't know why Portugal tends to get disproportionate attention.
I'd just like to know how spending 8 billion on new buildings will fix the scandal and corruption issues. I get that the new jails will be more modern and humane but that's only part of the issue. The only thing this appears to be doing is freeing up a lot of interesting real estate for development while leaving more questions than answers.
This is NYC. The one rule in the big apple is that real estate trumps everything. Nothing happens there without an underlying benefit to property owners. That said, reforming jails isn't one of those things that societies do in isolation. Jail/prison reform always rides on the back of some other program. What matters is that they make the change. Whether that change is funded by altruism or greed doesn't matter to those on the inside, today and tomorrow. They only care about the change itself.
Isn't that supposed to be part of the dissuading nature of punishment? Like, aren't we supposed to deter the more basal among us from committing crimes based on their fear of what will happen to them?
Obviously not to the extent of cruel and unusual punishment, but having a rough go of things seems reasonable enough for a jail environment. It's not a damned country club.
Except the vast majority (85% according to this NYT article [1]) of Rikers inmates are pretrial detainees, ie people who have not been convicted of anything. Many are there because they can't afford bail, meaning they are in effect being punished for being poor.
Also I disagree that the conditions in jail are part of the punishment. I think the punishment is supposed to be the loss of freedom, not the risk of harm at the hands of other inmates.
As it turns out, not many people commit crimes because they are fun.
Deterrents like hash punishments work, but only to the extent that the person has an option. Many people who turn to crime have no or few professional skills, and would struggle to make a living completely legitimately. Hence, they do what anyone would do in that situation, and commit crime to survive.
And when individuals are locked away in prisons for years at a time with no rehabilitation, nothing's really changed. They are still in the same situation as before, except now they have a criminal record, making their situation even more dire.
This leads to a revolving door effect where many individuals end up back in the same prison they just left. Not only does this ruin the person's life, it also costs the public in both lost productivity, and costs associated with housing imprisoned individuals.
Many modern countries short circuit this cycle by educating and rehabilitating imprisoned individuals so by the time they leave their cells they are ready to join the economy as an effective worker.
Think of it this way, if your child was struggling to get passing grades in school, what would be more effective? Locking them in their room with a book, or hiring a tutor?
> Hence, they do what anyone would do in that situation, and commit crime to survive.
I will believe this when a person is stealing food, or even selling drugs. I will not believe this when a person is involved in violent acts, rape, murder, etc. which nobody "needs" to do to survive.
> Not only does this ruin the person's life
Arguably already ruined before they went to jail, in terms of their trajectory. Very, very few of these people are on the cusp of turning their lives around; it seems much more likely that they're just on the verge of getting caught, time and time again, until it finally happens.
> it also costs the public in both lost productivity
I don't believe this. It's rare that someone in this situation would have been productive at all, their entire lives, if the standard of "productive" is "pays more into the tax system than they take out". Even if they never went to jail, there's no reason to assume they'd be helping society somehow with their presence. And what of the many other unemployed non-criminals who could be being productive in whatever role you're imagining for our criminal sort? If we're worried about lost productivity, surely they come first.
> Many modern countries short circuit this cycle by educating and rehabilitating imprisoned individuals so by the time they leave their cells they are ready to join the economy as an effective worker.
This is such an academic view of the issue. Ex-cons seldom get any kind of good job - they're relegated to taking jobs that are stuck hiring them because they literally cannot find anyone else at their price point.
> Think of it this way, if your child was struggling to get passing grades in school, what would be more effective? Locking them in their room with a book, or hiring a tutor?
What an utterly vapid comparison. Struggling to get good grades is not even remotely the same thing as committing crimes; and it's not like most of these criminal sorts haven't had 18 years of second chances and resources being thrown at them.
You can't reach some folks. You can stop them from reaching you.
> I will not believe this when a person is involved in violent acts, rape, murder, etc. which nobody "needs" to do to survive.
Agreed. There is a spectrum of individuals, and not everyone is good. However, if you break down the types of crime, non-violent crimes are very much the majority (0). Most people don't like hurting other people.
If you want an example of a working system with the mentality of "Rehabilitate over Punish", see many of the Nordic countries (1).
> in the past decade, the number of Swedish prisoners has dropped from 5,722 to 4,500 out of a population of 9.5 million. The country has closed a number of prisons, and the recidivism rate is around 40%, which is far less than in the U.S. and most European countries.
You can argue this is due to other factors such as overall wealth of the nation, but that further proves my point that crime is more often an act of desperation rather than one of sadism.
> and it's not like most of these criminal sorts haven't had 18 years of second chances and resources being thrown at them
A lot of these kids _haven't_. You're assuming everyone grew up in a middle class neighborhood with good teachers and was never pressured by gangs and never mistreated by authority. That's simply not the case. If you examine the personal history of many imprisoned people, you'll find a common pattern of poverty, limited chances, and family issues. All of which aren't the fault of the individual.
> You're assuming everyone grew up in a middle class neighborhood with good teachers and was never pressured by gangs and never mistreated by authority.
I'm not assuming that at all, I just don't buy it as an excuse for anything. Should we let such problems fester forever? Aww, gee, this kid grew up around gangs, guess we better give him a free pass for a few crimes that we wouldn't give to a privileged kid?
If anything we need to be harsher on gangland so as to eventually stomp it out. Unless you think that we should just accept organized crime as a fact of life and stop trying? Damn, those Brazilian favelas are looking better all the time, eh?
> If you examine the personal history of many imprisoned people, you'll find a common pattern of poverty, limited chances, and family issues.
Absolutely not. We should take measures to ensure that individuals in those areas are on a path to better futures, if not for themselves, then for their posterity who will continue to live in that area. But you don't give people better fathers and mothers by taking them away and abusing them. If anything, doing that would just inspire distrust in the government and authority in general into those kids, leading to a poor future outside of society.
> better give him a free pass for a few crimes that we wouldn't give to a privileged kid
I never said anything about treating people differently based on their backgrounds.
> If anything we need to be harsher on gangland so as to eventually stomp it out. Unless you think that we should just accept organized crime as a fact of life and stop trying? Damn, those Brazilian favelas are looking better all the time, eh?
Ironic you mentioned Brazil, a country with massive crime issues and a grim future, and also aligns with your "Harsh on Crime" stance[0]. Whereas some of the lowest crime rates in the world can be seen in Switzerland, Denmark and Norway, where prisons are rehabilitation first[1].
> Probably also find a common pattern of low IQ.
Wouldn't that imply education would help?
You seem to be contradicting yourself, I recommend reading up on the topic a bit more to form more informed opinions.
I think Rikers goes beyond that. Preet Bharara talks about it in his book (specifically an example where a guard beats a prisoner awaiting trial to death along with examples of other problems). Some places may be so problematic they are beyond reform.
Wouldn't be surprised if this is why it's closing. I'm sure there's some nice kickback from land developers that will put multi-million dollar condos there or something of the sort.
It'll be interesting to see how they actually pull off the prisoner reduction numbers in practice. Hopefully they don't just start ignoring petty theft like some other places have done. That would likely eventually result in the policy pendulum swinging hard the other way eventually.
I'm not sure I understand. How is a city supposed to function with no police force? Wouldn't it essentially be anarchy? How long would it take for looting to start, once people realize nobody will stop them? It only takes an hour or so of rioting, usually....
If you did something like this, the result would likely be having the National Guard come in and restore order and be far more oppressive than the NYPD is.
I think people intend something more like the RUC -> PSNI transition, with a wholesale replacement of only senior staff and a rebuild of the ethos.
Some of the US police problems might be solvable by a floating Federal civilian force which could come in from outside to replace and investigate the most corrupt local forces.
I'm not an American, but it seems to me an issue with a federal police force is that federal laws may differ from state laws (e.g. with regards to prohibited substances, among other issues).
New York actually has a functioning police force. It's borderline amazing that it is such a nice, clean, well-running city. Despite Cuomo's attempts, it is still generally well-regulated.
Whats the TLDR for the paywalled? Not from the US, but I get the impression a lot of people were in Rikers on remand, some for years without trial. Is that addressed, or it this just a move them to another prison?
but let us not kid ourselves, those numbers are not majority small time offenders. a city that large has a good number of people not fit to be around the rest