This is far too long to post in full so I'm just posting the link.
I don't agree with all of it but there's a LOT of food for thought within it and a lot of good common sense too.
www.prisoners.com/deterx.htmlLike you, there are things I find to disagree with. One of them is that while prison may not be much of a deterrent there's not much evidence that anything else is either. There were some pretty strong measures in the past against crime but they never stopped it. At the extreme they led to a literal
better be hanged for a sheep than a lamb. On the other hand, punishment will deter some people but mostly those in an extraordinary situation who under normal conditions would never consider that kind of behaviour - and perhaps just when they should consider it.
Encouragement as to what is 'expected behaviour' seems to be far more effective. Bleatings that it is only the fear of punishment in this life or another that keeps up 'moral' are hogwash. It is fear of our peers that keeps up moral and if those peers follow a path that the larger society finds immoral, the chances are that we will follow it too, at best to fit in, at worst out of fear.
I fear for the moral of a society dominated by religious moralists because they appear to take it for granted that we
want to perform all kinds of mayhem but are prevented to by fear. The fact is that most of us do not want to perform mayhem in the first place, a strong sense of empathy prevents us: we really are in many cases
all one. It is when that breaks down and we become thrown back on our individual resources distrustful of each other that the trouble arises.
In my opinion, that is why there is so much more violence in the USA than in Europe and why it has risen in the more European right-wing nations. Their ideology is one of each self against others, of personal gain (material and abstract) first and consequent reduction of empathy and value in relationships.
What's in it for me disrupts,
pleasure of giving pleasure unites. This correlates with a finding that came up elsewhere a few days ago, that people are likely to be more willing and perform better when asked a favour than when offered an incentive. They may even feel insulted by the latter while complimented at the thought that somebody thought to ask their services. The social ethic since about 1980 has been the exact opposite and the whole concept of doing a job for any reason than the money laughed out of court.
Since the money and the status matter more than anything else, we have a wholly unrealistic ethos that ignores all human and animal psychology to train us that it is good to 'get' - but bad to get in the wrong way. It doesn't work like that: the end is pretty much an unconscious matter but the means are a conscious decision and if that means (woops!) doing a risk analysis on breaking the law then that is what happens. So you might just live the life of Riley until getting caught in your late 60s and banged up under good, if strict, social care. Or you might get caught at 30 and spend a few years inside. No matter: it will all be there when you come out young enough to enjoy it.
For what it's worth, I think the only equitable system for most crimes is restitutional work, ranging from community service to labour camp. Some cases may be of a psychological kind where treatment may be effective and not all treatments need to bother about all 'human rights' - wasn't that the message
Clockwork Orange disapproved of, that it is more 'honourable' to kill an antisocial thug than to 'brainwash' him? I disagree, though I do agree that where there is not the slightest hope of rehabilitation in any way, it is better to kill them than to sequester them in Broadmoors for the same result of removing the menace from society.
There are those who function well in strict societies like the military and jail. There is little to tell between each. They will come out wiser than they went in, in all the wrong ways. Others function badly and will only come out crippled psychologically. In either case, it is unlikely that they would function well on the outside, even if they had the kind of help they'd need and rarely get, to do so.
The ultimate creator of a civil society is a society where civility is respected.
I witnessed an interesting scene today and wonder how it would have turned out in another time or place. The (single-decker) bus braked and the sound was heard of bottles clanking at the back. The driver leant round and told them to stop drinking. A little later, he (an African built like the proverbial) walked down the bus and politely told them no alcohol consumption. All quiet agreement but not long after, they're at it again, "It's Halloween after all".
As happens, they change driver at the next stop and while waiting for his replacement, he orders them off the bus. They refuse, he calls the police and informs his replacement (a scrawny little Irishman with a much less polite turn of phrase, perhaps because he is 'one of their own') orders them
off this feckin' bus, the guards have been called if, ye've any sense ye can walk now before they get here. Nothing doing. Most of us instead walk to a bus behind but some stayed, evidently to see what would transpire.
What struck me was the strange polite courtesy of it all. It felt like maybe the 18th century when underneath all the "Pray Sir, explain this matter if you please" lies the threat of 'satisfaction' at dawn.