Like this, but brown.
I like the idea of shifting to decreasingly restrictive punishments - it's a great idea. Likewise the idea of giving non-violent offenders a time period with a curfew and a restrictions instead of time in a prison.
But the idea that the "strictest" punishment is a farm prison is something I disagree with. Violent offenders, particularly murderers need to be removed from being a threat to society, and punished (I believe the rules are against getting graphic about this, so please do not) severely. The death penalty should be left as a final resort, and today's standard prisons should be greatly cut in number - but there are still instances where it's appropriate. If you murder someone, for instance, you have ended their lives, and I see no reason for society to grant you any chance of leading a normal one yourself.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
The total range of punishment could be different per region, for Canada itself the max is life, thus farm-prison makes the most sense (they are separated from society). Actually most countries do not have death penalty at all and especially European countries and Canada also have major limits on life imprisonment.
The idea here is that you can have a softer "life" imprisonment, in the sense that if someone does well, they can shift down to less restrictive corrective services over their life time even if they never become completely free again.
Like this, but brown.
I think that ruins one of the better parts of the plan. By separating offenders who have done something bad, but not irreparably so, from those who have committed unforgivable, irreversible crimes, we hopefully stop the one from learning more violent tendencies from the other. If you could be shifted to less restrictive prisons (say from a typical US prison to a farm prison) then those offenders whose highest level will be that less restrictive prison will now be interacting with (and fearing or learning from) the more violent offenders.
No thanks. Again, the overall idea is good, but I think the worst offenses should have a permanent punishment, and no switching down to something less restrictive where you can affect those who did not commit offenses as violent as yours.
So I would have a class of crimes (death penalty/life without parole crimes) that would go to ordinary prisons that we have today, then shift everyone else into the system we're talking about.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
The biggest problem though, is theres a good deal of the country that doesnt want criminals to be rehabilitated. They want them to suffer.
Like this, but brown.
The best response to that, imo, is to appeal to their sense of safety. For any crime where we intend to release you at some point, this system is far more likely to reduce recidivism once the person is released. We could have some sort of public punishment, like flogging or something like that to deal with the need for vengeance, and then put them into this system.
But some people will never care, sadly.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
So yes, I have strictly removed punishment from the system. I also did not mention but should have mentioned a system of trying to organise inmates in a manner to prevent learning of negative behaviours. I specifically wanted to avoid "criminals training criminals" as well, where you put two thieves in prison, one better than the other and they learn how to commit crime better.
Plus I wanted to shift down the inability of inmates to obtain jobs, thereby giving them an active and already well-constructed life when they fully exit correctional services. That is likely the best deterrent against crime.
I don't specifically have death/life in this system but Canada already does not, so it doesn't matter and nobody is asking for public punishments in Canada. The United States, being different and I, not being American, won't impose that value system. The United States would continue to have the harshest punishment as death if they want.
Also, the idea is that if someone is actually completely irrevocably dangerous, they should never pass a review anyway.
Like this, but brown.
Well, I'm pretty on board with social values, but this idea of not punishing someone is very foreign to me. If someone killed, say, my father, I would want to punish them myself. The only moral reason I would yield to the state in this regard was if I was certain the state would do its best to do it for me in a fair manner, where I couldn't be fair. So if someone takes away the life of another, I would say that regardless of whether they start improving their behavior, they do not deserve the chance to live a normal one of their own, and I find it morally repugnant to give them the opportunity.
Therefore, for those people only I would want to keep our current prison system. Everyone else - that is, anyone we ever intended to release - I would want to be rehabilitative. Because punishing those people would have a negative impact on society once they were released. Punishing someone you aren't going to release (because of a moral imperative) does not have that same counterweight.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.
http://politicallyuntenable.blogspot.com/2012/08/least-correctional-service.html
I'm proposing a justice system whose goal is "reach the lowest possible recidivism rate given the current budget".
The idea is that when a person is convicted of a crime they are sentenced to the least possible punishment possible to achieve the lowest chance of recidivism.
So the worst punishment, under this system, is farm prison and the least is an enforced curfew. Once you put into a particular level of correctional services you "shift" out by getting good reviews and slowly move back toward full freedom.
I would also propose an expansion of a national job placement system. This is for everyone but will also be used for convicted individuals as they move toward full freedom. The idea is that they get "a job", and in this case, there is less lenience on matching skill to job (especially if your punishment is to no longer do banking, you can no longer use your relevant banking skills).