SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Last September, a group of academics and activists gathered at Princeton University to discuss the limits of artificial intelligence in public policy. The longest debate concerned some of the most sensitive decisions in the justice system, like whether to release a person on bail or parole. Many in attendance were queasy about using algorithms to determine prison stays — not least because crime data tends to reflect racial bias. But one conference goer in particular stood out for his skepticism.
His name was Bruce Reilly. The deputy director of a New Orleans organization called VOTE, which advocates for the formerly incarcerated, Mr. Reilly is a minor celebrity in the field. He was a sounding board for the leader of the recent Florida ballot campaign that restored voting rights to up to 1.4 million former felons, and helped lead similar initiatives in Rhode Island and Louisiana. Mr. Reilly, 45, has playful eyes, weathered skin and a boyish voice, and at Princeton, he wore a dark blazer that did not appear to be his natural uniform. Though it was barely midmorning, his shirt was already threatening to decamp from his pants as he turned to address a Princeton postdoctoral researcher sitting next to him.
"Statistically," Mr. Reilly told her, "the safest person to let out of prison is a murderer." The academic, Madelyn Sanfilippo, screwed up her face in apparent disbelief. "You seem like a person who cares about statistics," Mr. Reilly continued, arguing that people convicted of lesser crimes often cycle in and out of prison, while someone serving a long sentence for murder has typically matured out of crime by the time he is released.
"That makes sense," Ms. Sanfilippo said, warming to the claim. They talked amiably for a few more minutes. When they were done, Mr. Reilly turned and whispered in my ear: "She has no idea."
Related: Virginia Court Overturns Order That Restored Voting Rights to Felons
Florida Voting Rights Restoration Process Found Unconstitutional
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:50AM
... If you knew he had killed people?
Please don't take offense: I'm not saying taken military action that requires killing someone is the same "murder" (though in some cases, it may be judged so, if the orders were illegal, or if a soldier takes it upon himself to do something particularly heinous). Nor should this be taken as disparaging military veterans, whom I generally hold in very high regard for service and sacrifice.
I'm pointing out that in modern society taking another human life is an unusual act for anyone. It's not a coincidence that the soldiers who do this are often young men still lacking some of the judgment and wisdom of older people -- a similar demographic to those who often end up in jail for various types of murders (gang murders, crimes of passion and sudden rage, etc.). It's also not a coincidence that it often takes special training for elite special forces groups to prepare young people for the gruesome acts of killing sometimes called for in elite units.
And we've noted incidence of PTSD (earlier called other things like "battle fatigue" or "shell shock") that causes sometimes permanent psychological changes in those involved in such military killings. We've seen the increased rates of violence and suicide often among such combat veterans.
Yet, we also recognize that there are many veterans who mature and become psychologically stable adults, adults who often may not reflect back on their killings as young people with nostalgia... instead, they may sometimes question whether they would be able to do such actions again, without the naive jingoism often instilled in young troops. (I have a family member who fought in WWII who felt this way later.)
By no means am I saying that all murderers -- or even most murderers -- should just be excused and assumed rehabilitated. Many if not most display various psychological traits that won't change as they mature. But I think a significant minority of those who commit such crimes as young men may in fact grow up to be different people a couple decades later, people who would never kill again. Some may even find their actions immediately abhorrent (as many PTSD sufferers do), but a crime of passion is often excused in wartime as "normal" if inflicted on a "bad guy," but a similar crime inflicted by a civilian on another person who has acted as a "bad guy" can land someone in prison for decades or life.
I'll freely admit I would have probably been skeptical myself of befriending this person or perhaps giving him a chance initially in the first few years after he was released from prison and started going to law school. But now? It sounds like he's done a great deal of good within the legal system.
It really comes down to whether you believe people can change. I think the murdering/killing impulse is actually a pretty basic human instinct that has gradually become less and less acceptable in society over the millennia. So do I think it's possible that someone who does something horrible as a teenager could become an adult who would never commit such an act again? Absolutely. I also think many and perhaps most who commit murders may never be able to rejoin society fully as this person seems to... but that doesn't mean I would judge all those who committed past crimes long ago in that way.