Korean Job Discussion Forums

[FMPJ]

[Koveras]

[Koveras]

[tfunk]

[Kuros]

[FMPJ]

[ekul]

Instead of asking the question what should we do with the huge amount of people in prison, maybe we should ask why there is a huge prison population.

And slavery is abhorrent, it's quite unbelievable that so many people seem to think it is a perfectly fine way of dealing with criminals. Do you really think people should become slaves because they got busted smoking weed?

[tfunk]

[ekul]

If slavery is a loaded term, then the OP was loading his thread, trolling basically.

Slavery suggests ownership, should the state ever own anybody? No way. If the question instead is, should community service be used more, then that's different. Maybe send some white collar criminals over the Korea to teach English

[cj1976]

Make them work in call-centres. It's worse than you think it is.

[Perceptioncheck]

[semi-fly]

I was kind of expecting someone to say: Instead of a life sentence....make them watch American reality programming (anything with Paris Hilton will have them pleading for death).

[Koveras]

>>>Not for weed. I think it would have to be for more serious crimes.

Of course. I did say instead of life terms. Do some states hand out life sentences for having drugs? I don't know.

>>>If slavery is a loaded term, then the OP was loading his thread, trolling basically.

You're right, I sought a reaction. But whether we call it slavery or forced community service, I'm serious about the idea.

>>>Slavery suggests ownership, should the state ever own anybody?

As I've said a couple times, prisoners might be given (or sold) to private owners. I don't like the state either.

>>>Whatever you have in mind for them - humane or not - you can pretty much garauntee they'll be infringing upon an already existing market.

I'm under the impression that slavery is often good for markets. Or at least that we can't say unconditionally that slavery will take jobs.

[Fox]

Boring day at work, here's a possible response to your question:

1) Social circumstances or mental health issues are ultimately responsible for serious criminal behavior.
2) In the case of mental health issues individuals are generally put into mental institutions rather than prison (at least that is what our legal system calls for), so those individuals can be ignored for this argument, leaving only those who commit crimes based on social circumstances.
3) The social circumstances responsible for serious crime should be eliminated.
4) Anything which makes reducing or eliminating the social circumstances responsible for serious crime less pressing or important should be avoided.
5) Using life-termers as slaves for society's benefit makes reducing or eliminating the social circumstances responsible for serious crime less pressing.
6) Using life-termers as slaves should be avoided.

Explanation of #1: anyone who commits a serious crime does so for a reason; most of us do not go around indulging in crimes beyond the most petty of levels (read: speeding, shop lifting, etc). Things like murder, extreme violence, and so forth (read: anything you'd get a life sentence for), where not caused by mental illness, inevitably come from our upbringing or situation. I think this is fairly easy to accept as true.

Explanations of #2 and #3: fairly self-explanatory and obvious I would imagine.

Explanation of #4: humans are incentive based. Something being the "right thing" in theory often isn't enough for them to DO the right thing, particularly if it would not directly impact their lives in a positive fashion. Removing or reducing the social circumstances that cause sane yet serious criminals to emerge might be good for society, but that doesn't mean it would positively impact the lives of each individual in that society. I personally have never been touched by serious crime, and I likely never will be. Many people are in my position. It is very easy for such people to look at criminals as nothing more than people who made immoral choices, without considering what turned them into such people. Thus, such individuals have no incentive beyond compassion to try to help solve the problem at hand, and compassion in many cases is insufficient, particularly given the very abstract and vast nature of the problem in this case.

Explanation of #5: if our society actively benefits from "criminal slaves" that in and of itself provides some disincentive to attack this issue at it's core. If our society further becomes DEPENDENT on said "criminal slaves" then there is actually an incentive -- regardless of how unethical that incentive might be -- to increase the social circumstances that lead to sane yet serious criminals emerging.

In summary, these people should be a drain on society, because by ensuring they are a drain on society, we maximize the incentive to fix the problem that continues to make such individuals behave the way they do. If anything, they should be more of a drain, not less of one.

If a child is born and is turned into a productive, conscientious citizen by our social system, our social system benefits from it. Why should our social system also benefit when it turns said children into dangerous criminals? Honestly, it shouldn't, because it failed those individuals at least much as those individuals failed society.

Didn't proof read, tell me if you notice any errors please.

[Koveras]

Your post forces me into broad considerations, and I'm working on a reply. Should be ready tomorrow.