Prisons more like European prisons that focuses on rehabilitation not isolation. Not slave labour camps the Americans call jails.
post
Why the downvotes? It is a perfectly reasonable topic to discuss, and an interesting one at that.
Yeah that's not complicated to understand... Some people take their lives on internet forums far to seriously 🤣...
Um, I think the inclusion of jaywalkers in the title was a joke.
In concept, it's simple: Identify the conditions that lead people into anti-social behaviors, and change those conditions to encourage pro-social behavior instead. That way, not only do we avoid having to incarcerate people, we don't have victims anymore. This may sound abstract and hand-wavey, so as a concrete example, crime is way, way down compared to the 1970's, and it seems to have a lot to do with eliminating leaded gasoline, and allowing abortion. A concerted effort to reduce poverty would go a long way to reducing crime rates even further.
Social influence (culture, social norms, peer pressure, etc.) is the most effective way to keep people in line. Laws do diddly-squat. Most people respond to their life conditions and surroundings, including what people even think of as crime. For a good example, instead of jaywalking, consider speeding. It's against the law, but socially promoted, so virtually all drivers do it even though it's against the law. Or, consider a "law-and-order conservative" business owner whose social circle wants to see the heads of the local panhandlers cracked, but happily engages in wage theft from his employees, and whose pastor at church is diddling kids. Simply put, the better alternative to prison is to create and put people in social environments that don't tolerate crime in the first place.
Even people who don't respond to social influence, the sociopaths, can be handled more productively. They still have motivations and needs that, while disconnected from empathy, still guide their behavior. They're still essentially rational people, too. There's a program here at the Mendota Mental Health Institute that works to rehabilitate sociopathic people who've landed in the criminal justice system. They've had good success by identifying what these young men want, and explaining/demonstrating to them (i.e. through their rational faculties) that they can get what they want long-term by learning and following society's rules. I know a guy who is/was deficient in empathy, and landed in jail, where his therapists helped him exercise and develop his empathy. Smart dude, and now he's got a productive job where he's invaluable to the company. The concept is again deceptively simple: As an intelligent man, he learned to consciously ask himself, how would I feel if my actions were instead applied to me? He uses the Golden Rule, essentially.
Let me flip this around and ask why do we consider prison as an appropriate way to "deal" with murderers, rapists, and child predators? I would point out that the United States has a huge prison population, and murderers, rapists, and child predators. If the threat of prison were an effective deterrent, why is that? (To unload the question, I'll say that I believe that we practice incarceration as a morality play by which we re-assure ourselves that we are good people compared to the criminal scum. It has nothing whatsoever to do with concern for victims.)
Yeah, some people are just born fucked up, and putting them in prison to handle it is a bad way to handle them. What do I mean? Well, when people are born fucked up, it's usually pretty obvious. A lot of the infamous mass shooters that come to mind, people knew. In some cases, they tried desperately to get somebody to help do something about it.
But our system (correctly, IMO) operates on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. That is, we have to wait for fucked up people to hurt somebody else before we can put them in prison. Better would be a system that addresses mental health concerns and anti-social personality issues that people around them could draw upon, rather than just relying on cops and courts.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we could ever completely eliminate incarceration. We don't live in a perfect world, after all. But getting rid of prisons is a good goal to aim for.
Vibes based "feels like" over empirical data based (hard evidence). "It feels like bloodletting is a more effective cure for sepsis than intensive antibiotic treatment." That's how that sounds.
All the time you spend asking questions and disagreeing you could as well spend actually searching, reading, watching videos.
Any serious answer to that is going to be pretty much book-length really.
Here's one attempt: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/prison-research-education-action-project-instead-of-prisons
how would you deal with murderers, rapists, child predators
okay... interesting question...
and jaywalkers
Wat? 🧐
This is the greatest bait I've ever seen. Dying laughing at jaywalkers lmao. Teach me your ways king
Poverty and proximity are major factors increasing and sustaining crime, and if people don't commit crimes they don't become incarcerated prisoners. So better social systems for people who need it and forcing wealthy citizens to co-locate with poor citizens so they have to share the same goods and services instead of allowing a multi class system in everything but name. And for the US obviously outlawing for profit prisons and the prison slavery clause of the 13th amendment. No crime justifies slavery as a punishment. That'll reduce prison populations by such a large amount that you could easily manage rehabilitation and humane incarceration programs for each individual.
Incarceration?
My personal opinion, segregation from society isn't the issue so much as retributive segregation. Segregation from society should focus on intensive therapies, ongoing after release, if necessary, providing some sort of educational, trade, and artistic training, and supportive social services after release, alongside parole.
jaywalkers
Hahaha
I like the cut of your jib.
do you want results or to enact self righteous suffering in the name of punishment
then you really don’t want US style incarceration for like 99.9% of cases
you want therapy, job training and some form of assisted (but restricted) living, kinda like a halfway home
but it needs to be well funded and have strong oversight
all that to say it’ll never happen in the us because that makes it hard to extract profit from the system
Any one of these celestial bodies:
I think that incarceration isn't necessarily problem. It's who gets incarcerated for what, and how many innocent people mistakenly end up railroaded. Alternatively, cases of affluenza and individuals who help keep the broken system going, are often considered above the law.
Violent offenders should be locked up. All of them, regardless of wealth or connections. But they still deserve to participate in a fair and just legal system.
Nonviolent offenders should be fined, and the amount they're fined should be equivalent to the crime they've committed while taking their own wealth and ability to pay into consideration. If people commit a very serious nonviolent crime, but either can't or won't pay off the debt they're fined, they should have the option of volunteering in their community to pay off their debt. If they fail to pay fines or repay their community via volunteer time, then potentially they should have their wages garnished.
Most importantly though, nobody should be getting insanely wealthy via investments in private prisons. There should be no incentive to simply pack as many people as possible into a prison while pretending that you've done something positive for society that also just happens to greatly increase your profits.
Without incarceration? I don't think there is a massive anti-incarcerarion argument in the US, to a point. With the current iteration, sure, but other countries do incarceration correctly, where rehabilitation is the focus. But I don't think there is an appropriate option for those crimes (jaywalking withheld lol) that isn't some kind of separation from "polite society". Obviously grey areas exist in some cases; self-defence, crimes of passion, etc where there are mitigating details, but just in general, I wouldn't have any good options for those cut and dry convicted criminals that isn't incarceration of some form. I guess the option would be round the clock services and supervision for redirection and rehabilitation? But that has a whole host of problems and you'd likely need a dozen or so people per convict? As well as housing facilities, and specialized workers for therapy/education, etc, and then it looks a lot like prison, just without the physical walls at that point.
I would agree the US version would not be helpful though, aside from attempting to give society some kind of satisfaction of "justice served".
I guess the option would be round the clock services and supervision for redirection and rehabilitation? But that has a whole host of problems and you'd likely need a dozen or so people per convict? As well as housing facilities, and specialized workers for therapy/education, etc, and then it looks a lot like prison, just without the physical walls at that point.
That's still less expensive than building, maintaining, and staffing massive prison systems.
I just want shorter sentences. On second offences we give them reincarnation.
Did you mean incarceration?
Tell the murderers and child molesters: We’re letting you go with a warning this time. But if you even think about anything reprehensible again, we’ll lock you up with the JAYWALKERS.
/s
Jaywalkers? Fix urban planning to where people don't have to jaywalk to begin with, ie. start de-emphasizing stroads and car dependence already...
Murderers, rapists, and pedos? Those are a genuine threat to public safety and actually need to be locked away for that reason.
I'd do a Royal Rumble. Throw them all in the ring together and let it sort itself out.
Fair. It's the Parks & Recreation "jail" skit. I looked for a gif of the full thing, but gave up when I couldn't find it. Still funny in 2026, though!
I trust victims and the local community to deal with such issues on a case by case basis.
I have a friend who is a public defender. As he tells it, 99% of the people he defends are 100%, without a doubt, indisputinly guilty. The guy getting accused of beating his wife and kids was, in fact, beating his wife and kids. And the guy making death threats to his former employer will, predictably, also start making death threats towards his former lawyer when he gets convicted.
That's a world nobody wants to live in.
ok well get better neighbors
What happens when the nearest community to yours is full of "bad neighbors" who decide they want your shit?
as i said, we would deal with shit like that on a case-by-case basis.
Can you please give examples for how communities would deal with serious crimes? cops and judges on the take?
I imagine councils headed by the victims, sometimes. or maybe just elders concerned about safety. they might decide on shunning or excommunication or branding or exile or any combination. or more extreme measures, but, as I said, I'd prefer things be handled on a case by case basis.
stare decisis is bullshit, and so are laws.
Thank you for detailing your answer, I appreciate that. That said, this sounds more like anarchist rather than "commie."
Shunning had really bad psychological effects, branding seems cruel, especially if exculpatory evidence is found after the fact. I'm afraid to ask what more extreme measures may be. But I do very much appreciate your reply.
I know of no such argument. Maybe to much incarceration unnecessarily or bad conditions.
Death penalty on the spot, no exceptions.
EDIT: Just realized I wasn't clear. I meant for the jay walkers.
While I don't have a problem with executions, the evidentiary standards to prevent innocent deaths make the practice essentially arbitrary. It's better and more affordable to just lock them away forever. Some countries do go so far as to always allow a possibility of parole, but I don't think their methods would translate as well to other nations.
top 74 comments