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: 4, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:03AM (11 children)
When arguing that statistics show a certain thing to be true. I am reminded of the quote: : "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics [wikipedia.org]
While, it may be true that a murderer is the safest kind of criminal to release. That's only dealing with a tiny aspect of the whole issue. Not least of which being the question of "What is the proper punishment for taking a life?". Those affected by the loss of a loved one will be affected for life, in some manner or other. Society at large is generally affected negatively as well. Is the proper punishment meted out in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, . . ., or Life?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:10AM
A classic text [wikipedia.org] on the subject. The 3 copies I've owned have been loaned out, never to be returned -- a bunch of possible statistical jokes there.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:35AM (2 children)
Shouldn't we be concerned with rehabilitation in preference to punishment? If so, even a single night [youtube.com] might be enough.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @01:04AM
Estimates between 25-75% of the prison population meet the diagnostic criteria for ASPD which is untreatable. Psychopaths are indifferent to punishment, they respond to reward based "treatment" -- institutional control and not rehabilitation. The phrase "restorative justice" is a huge red flag to me.
I do. [amazon.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:26PM
I prefer to settpe it how the Bible says. Mr Reilly should not be breathing to make his arguments.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:56AM (4 children)
Also if we let murderers out after a week, they would be just as likely to commit another as a shoplifter would be to shoplift again.
Except it would be someone getting murdered instead of something getting stolen.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday February 21 2019, @01:57AM
- Stance:
To prevent convicted shoplifters from taking lives just eight days after they're put away, we can ensure the safety of your society by sending up each convicted showlefter for the rest of their very days.
My Hat's Off To You, Sir!
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Thursday February 21 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
"Also if we let murderers out after a week, they would be just as likely to commit another as a shoplifter would be to shoplift again."
Interesting premise; but its probably not true. Statistically, a fair number of people in for murder have already killed the only person in the world they wanted dead, that they were that angry at; and for many of them even that person maybe they didn't really mean to actually kill. They'll never kill anyone again. Ever.
Their time in prison is simple punishment.
Of course, some murderers will absolutely murder again. And they need to be in prison for the well being of others. So there's two groups.
I just don't see the same division for shoplifters.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday February 21 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)
While some of what you say may have some merit, treating murder as lightly as shoplifting would likely greatly increase the number of murders committed. When the worst punishment one could receive is no worse than shoplifting, how long would it be, before there would be some murder challenge going around? The potential punishment is also a deterrent. When your entire life can be totally screwed up by murdering someone, a potential murderer is likely to not murder someone. Whereas, if it's a slap on the wrist, an angry enough person could excuse their own actions, without a whole lot in the way of consequences. Of course, then you might have retaliatory killings as well. I could see a very slippery slope coated in blood there.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday February 23 2019, @10:51PM
I'm not suggesting we change anything about how we treat murder convicts.
I'm just pointing out that there's a sizeable percentage of murderers who have already killed the only person they'll ever kill.
The class of people I'm talking about killed without regard for the consequences. A slap on the wrist, life in prison, drawn and quartered, eternal damnation... it simply didn't even enter the equation at the time.
You are right of course, that lowering the punishment would definitely serve to make the -other- class of would be murderers more murderess though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @04:40AM
You really just don't get it since you don't question what benefits society. When a gang member kills another gang member isn't it one less gang-banger off the streets? When a hitman assassinates a corrupt politician or a day-trader isn't it just sparing society from the worst of the worst? And how does the the collateral damage of gangs begins to compare to a single pyramid scheme when people die off by the thousands after losing their life savings and not being able to pay their medical bills and rent?
The more you grok the numbers, the more apparent it becomes a "reformed" white-color criminal is both more likely to commit crime again and far more harming to society then a dozen unrepentant murderers combined.
And that's what behind those "damn lies" stats of theirs. Got it now?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 21 2019, @07:00PM
"What is the proper punishment for taking a life?"
And like pretty much every other question regarding human life the answer is "it depends."