
Prisons Are an Abomination - pan_cogito
http://churchlife.nd.edu/2019/02/26/prisons-are-a-biblical-abomination/
======
mLuby
Article says to abolish prisons and instead focus on healing. But as long as
there are criminal opportunities, some percentage of baseline humans will want
to exploit them, whether due to rational economic decision-making or quirks of
their neurological or psychological makeup. Either way, once there are people
with criminal intent, it becomes necessary to limit their possible actions to
both limit harm to the community and to facilitate healing. So while we may
get away from literal barred cells as other solutions become available, the
idea of imprisonment is not going anywhere.

~~~
fcarraldo
> But as long as there are criminal opportunities, some percentage of baseline
> humans will want to exploit them, whether due to rational economic decision-
> making or quirks of their neurological or psychological makeup.

Can you cite a source on this?

~~~
leetcrew
obviously they can't, but it seems to be true throughput the recorded history
of civilization. the burden of proof is probably on those who want to refute
this claim.

~~~
everdev
> the burden of proof is probably on those who want to refute this claim.

I agree that the claim is fairly self-evident, but the burden of proof should
be on the person making the claim.

It's not my job to do your research!

~~~
umvi
> but the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.

I think the burden of proof should be on whomever is making the less
collectively accepted claim. If I claim the earth is round and you are a flat
earther, I don't have to prove anything to you despite your demands. However,
if people everywhere generally accept that the earth is flat, then indeed the
burden of proof is on me to prove that the earth is actually round.

In GP's example, the statement "as long as there are criminal opportunities,
some percentage of baseline humans will want to exploit them" is a
collectively accepted claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on anyone
claiming something to the contrary.

~~~
everdev
> I think the burden of proof should be on whomever is making the less
> collectively accepted claim.

Good point

------
jdietrich
I hope that this article doesn't distract us from the elephant in the room -
that the US incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other
country, with no apparent benefit in terms of crime prevention. Most of that
disparity has been created since the Reagan administration's "war on drugs".

The case for abolishing prison entirely is distinctly tenuous, but there's a
fairly obvious case that the US criminal justice system is needlessly costly,
cruel and ineffective. Most of the arguments in defence of the status quo are
tacitly racist, e.g. "European countries don't need to imprison as many people
because their population isn't as _diverse_ ".

Prisons may be a necessary last resort to protect the public from violent
criminals, but the US criminal justice system is riddled with genuine
abominations - Three Strikes laws, plea bargains, private prison contracts
with minimum occupancy quotas, the high proportion of seriously mentally ill
inmates etc.

~~~
badfrog
> the US incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other
> country

A large part of this is ridiculously long sentences. You called out
California's three strikes law in you comment. One example of this I heard on
the excellent Ear Hustle podcast was somebody who was sentenced to 50 years to
life for stealing $40 (unarmed) after having two prior convictions. I don't
see how this is good for anybody.

~~~
webmobdev
I personally believe that the American criminal system is more influenced by
the Islamic Sharia system when it comes to punishment.

Under the Islamic Sharia system, the laws are very harsh - you steal and your
hand is cut off, you rape someone and you are stoned to death, you commit
adultery and you are publicly lashed and so on.

But the Sharia also allows the victim (or their relatives) to forgive the
perpetrator (with or without some compensation, usually money) in the spirit
of Islam.

The American criminal legal system tries to model something similar - and that
is why the punishments for most crimes are absurd too; for e.g. US courts
sometimes award absurd punishments of 200 years of jail time. Like the Sharia
system, once punishments is awarded and carried out the system ensures you end
up broken (in spirit, if not physically).

Where as in a Sharia system the victim decides on being compassionate or a
"fair" compensation in lieu of a lesser punishment, in the US system this
power is held with the government. And this is used as a bargaining chip to
make "deals" with the accused (note that I don't say the guilty, as sometimes
even the innocent make such deals afraid of the harsher punishment if they
were to lose the trial).

(From what I have read, some of the founding fathers of the US were admirers
of the Islamic empire and their political and legal system influenced by
Islam).

------
badfrog
Why was the word "biblical" removed from the title? It definitely seems
relevant to know that this is a religious argument.

~~~
adsadadsad
Probably something like the BBC, certain words are removed from the lexicon of
main stream media.

~~~
badfrog
To clarify, the actual article does have "biblical" in the title, it was just
removed from the HN submission.

------
conanbatt
After long introspeccion on the topic of prisons I finally distilled why I
found them terrible. Prisons as we know them are monuments to the hatred of
freedom.

If a society valued freedom as highly as possible, sending someone to prison
would be such a spectacular condemnation that great accomodations would be
offered. Instead, prisons serve as a demeaning punishment and eternal
condemnation.

There is great moral value in taking the liberty stance: it would mean that
prison would not be a great punishment for the great number of innocent and
wrongfully incarcerated. And It would also be a lot easier to prosecute all
kinds of crimes, as prison would not be as terrible as it is (but, if freedom
valued, still a punishment)

~~~
ConceptJunkie
But then you lose the value of deterrence. I'm not bashing Norway, but if
that's what our prisons were like, I think a lot of people wouldn't find them
a deterrent at all, and in fact for a lot of people, they would represent an
improvement in their lives.

Prison should not be cruel (e.g., solitary confinement for more than a short
period of time in unacceptable), but it should still be unpleasant if it is to
serve as a deterrent to committing crime, and that is definitely one of the
biggest reasons we have prisons... to incentivize people to stay out of them.

~~~
everdev
Unfortunately, I think this is true.

If in a game I can steal 10 points and at most get a 1 point penalty for
getting caught, I'm much more likely to give it a shot than if I get a 10 or
20 point penalty for getting caught. Plus, if everyone else in the game is
cheating and getting away with it, I'm much more likely to try it too.

The problem is if you make the penalties so severe and the application of the
rules unequal, then you end up with chopping people's hands off for stealing.

~~~
conanbatt
Losing your freedom is a -100. That is, if you value freedom.

~~~
everdev
Depends on how long you're in jail for and if it's Club Fed, or a Super Max.

I'm sure there are tons of people that would be willing to risk a month or
even a year in Club Fed for a chance at set for life money.

The calculation is different for everyone.

~~~
conanbatt
If jail were not a terrible place, would criminals to be choose not to be
criminals and just go to jail?

------
SolaceQuantum
I don't really know if I agree with the premise of this essay, mostly due to
its deeply religious argument. Beyond its intense spirituality however its
message is quite clear- the writer considers prisons to be a horrific
phenomenon, and because horror is a reaction of morality, a morally
unacceptable phenomenon.

The writer goes on to emphasize that prisons are morally unacceptable, but
also importantly the normalization of imprisoning humans to be morally
unacceptable.

~~~
bdhess
The author probably only finds confinement-as-punishment morally unacceptable
because he believes that just punishment will be meted out in the afterlife
anyway. If you take away the assumption of religion, there's really no
argument left.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
If he's appealing to Catholic social teaching and using that thinking, he's
definitely missing the point.

No proper Catholic would think, "We don't need to punish people now because
they'll get theirs in the afterlife". That is absolutely not a Catholic view
for a number of reasons.

------
doe88
It seems there is a shift in the terminology used - at least in the US - by
explicitly referring to people being _caged_. This is the second article in a
few weeks I read with this new language. The previous one was I think an
article about the jail in NY left without electricity. I must say even if it
seems at first to be a strong vocabulary it doesn't seem to me exaggerated.
Maybe it will help people understand the overall inhumanity of the current
situation.

------
Brendinooo
I only skimmed, but...there weren't a bunch of supporting arguments in this
piece, right? The argument is basically "people in cages is bad", which seems
like a reasonable take if you never question why people are in there.

Anger doesn't "mark...our reaction to encountering a wrong" if our reaction is
not grounded in truth.

There is plenty of room for criminal justice reform, but not by banning
prisons, and not by this kind of argumentation.

------
cheeko1234
Reminds me of Norway's implementation of prisons:

[https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-
is...](https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-
successful-2014-12)

Treating people with decency and respect, and giving them options to better
their life usually does wonders.

~~~
Gpetrium
Norwegian prisons are based on the aspect that "people make mistakes, but they
can improve", in other words, rehabilitation. Most countries have based their
prisons on the view that prison should be a form of punishment for wrong
doings.

------
detcader
> Attacking the image of God in the human is abominable, but this need not be
> a literal attack. Rather, a literal attack names but one species of the
> genus ‘domination,’ a broader category in which one imposes an arbitrary
> will on another. An individual can dominate, or a social system.

I am enjoying seeing anarchist anti-capitalism popping up everywhere. This
professor should check out Current Affairs and Nathan J. Robinson, folk punk,
Proudhon...

> Just as human-made categories disguise themselves as divine, divinity is
> obscured by social conventions.

I feel the professor would appreciate some Buddhist teachers!

------
tathougies
Wow this is something else. The historical revisionism and simultaneous appeal
to Catholicism is ridiculous.

While prisons have many problems and the church has spoken against poor
treatment of prisoners for many years, the opposite conclusion -- that we
should abolish prisons -- is nowhere to be found in the compendium of social
teaching. Moreover, the idea that prisons should serve a purely restorative
role is a modern invention. While restoration is certainly one goal, catholic
teaching also commands just punishment for crimes. The issue today is
disproprotionality in the sentence when compared with the crime committed.

Had the author stuck to that point, he would have had a good essay. Instead he
claimed all prisons are immoral. This is simply at odds with the Catholic
social teaching that just societies must seek temporal justice on behalf of
the victimized

Claims that prisons did not exist in the past are met with obvious skepticism
when you read about the apostles being imprisoned for sedition as well as the
catholic moral commandment to visit the imprisoned. Long sentences are of
course more common today as the power of the state has grown, but this is not
something to be criticized since many prisoners who have long sentences today
would have been swiftly executed in the past.

(Focusing on catholic teaching here because its from notre dame and Villanova)

~~~
rpiguy
I commented myself then deleted it because your rebuttal was more elegant :-)

As a father of daughters I am personally glad that prisons exist and fully
understand the issues with incarceration, but gladly accept the trade-off
(like many moral dilemmas the optimal choice may differ from person to
person). Were I African American and more likely to be wrongly imprisoned, I
might feel differently.

~~~
badfrog
> As a father of daughters [...]

> Were I African American [...] I might feel differently.

Why can't you incorporate women's issues into your world view without having
daughters? Or civil rights issues without being black?

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> Why can't you incorporate women's issues into your world view without having
> daughters? Or civil rights issues without being black?

Most people are most sympathetic to the plight of themselves and perhaps their
children. The GP has daughters and is presumably not African-American.

I wonder if you're talking about an attitude that you think the OP _ought to_
have, whereas he/she is describing the attitude that he/she _does_ have.

~~~
badfrog
> I wonder if you're talking about an attitude that you think the OP ought to
> have

Yes, of course I am. My question was rhetorical. It sounds like that person
understands that there are serious race issues in the criminal justice system
but is willing to overlook them for his own self interest. I think we'd all be
better off if we cared a bit more about people who are different from us.

------
umvi
> Just as anger marks our reaction to encountering a wrong and love marks our
> reaction to encountering the good, horror is a moral emotion marking our
> encounter with an abomination.

"If something makes me feel bad, therefore it _is_ bad. If something makes me
feel good, therefore it _is_ good."

Yes, prisons are unpleasant. Yes, we have a lot of people in there that
_probably_ don't belong there.

But we also have a lot of people that just can't integrate without society
without committing egregious crimes no matter how many chances they get. What
do we do with people like Charles Bronson[1]? Of course, fluff pieces like
this don't propose any solutions, just make sweeping declarations that prisons
should go away because a 5-year-old spoke a profound truth that keeping people
in cages is wrong.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bronson_(prisoner)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bronson_\(prisoner\))

~~~
the_af
> _Yes, prisons are unpleasant_

I think that's a bit of an understatement. For a vast number of inmates,
prisons seem to be hell on earth.

~~~
umvi
Are they really that bad though compared to historical prisons? What makes
them "hell on earth"? Modern prisons you get climate control, TVs, gym access,
library access, (limited) internet access, 3 meals a day, etc. Not even 200
years ago, prisons were often the crawlspace under a building where the
ceiling was only 4 feet off the exposed ground. If it was summer, you
sweltered. If it was winter, you froze. No entertainment of any kind was
provided, you couldn't even stand up straight without hitting the ceiling and
you were lucky to be fed once a day.

~~~
the_af
> _Are they really that bad though compared to historical prisons?_

Yes. But that particular comparison wasn't the point anyway.

> _What makes them "hell on earth"?_

Beatings. Rapes. Gangs. Drugs. Being forced to do illegal things by the
guards. Prisoners being at the mercy of people whose word always trumps theirs
(which means they will lose most cases of "I said, he said", which is a big
deal in prison). Many inmates enter prison as petty criminals and end up
graduating to the big leagues inside.

