Should prisoners have a record?
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
Quite true. Though there must still be some form of "reminders" left for those who had reformed to remember their past and to prevent them from committing crime again. A record is a good example..
Thought the jail term serves as a very good reminder for those who really want to live a better life so there is no need to whack them over again.In California it is '3 strikes and you are out!' which I think can be cruel to petty offenders so I suggest a 2 strikes (In Singapore and countries with a low crime rate)and the first record be brought back indefinitely.
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
Oh no, take it easy, old man. If you're looking for someone who would be willing to spend hours researching for data and statistics for a casual debate, I'll give it a miss. Maybe I'll reconsider this if there is a $1,000 reward for winning this debate with you.
Well, who would decide who wins, and what are the ground rules for a debate? In any case, my daily charge-out rate is $3000, so $1000 isn't particularly interesting.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:1. My original argument is about increasing the jail term for ex-offenders as a form of deterrence, so I don't really see how two articles discussing about the chances of an offender becoming a recedivist AFTER an increased jail term has been served relate to the argument.
And there's the rub. You're trying to prove something by its absence, and it would be an uphill battle for you. Pity - it would have been an easy three grand.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:2. "longer prison sentences had a 7% higher chance of producing repeat offenders"
You can't directly correlate longer prison sentences to recidivism. It's no better than saying that, noting the longer prison sentences, those who commit a felony are more likely to be repeat offenders as compared to those who commit a misdemeanor.Ah, but if you'd read the cited articles, you'd see that both used regression analyses, which do in fact imply causality.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:3. Even if longer prison sentences did result in an increase of the offenders' chances of being recidivous, I would like to point out that they also spend more time in prison, hence their chances of committing a crime in the society is also reduced. But no, I'm not advocating that they should stay in there longer. In fact, personally, I'm more in favour of plans to re-educate and prepare them to integrate back into and contribute to the society as soon as they're ready to. What I'm standing for here is the enhancement of jail term to deter ex-offenders from becoming repeat offenders.
Gendreau and company in fact agree with you that a legitimate function of prisons is to take criminals off the street and keep the population safe. However, if you read their literature review, you'll see an argument supporting the "schools of crime" view, where prison stretches may in fact enchance criminality.
Well and good for the deterrence argument, but presenting the threat is a useless gesture if you're not willing to go through with it, and if you do go through with it, you could well end up producing a bigger criminal than you started out with in the first place. It's a lose-lose proposition.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Oh, I got precisely what your point was, and the question still stands. You do the crime, you do the time and everything's squared. You pay COE once for each car and everything's squared. Why should something that's already been settled be dragged out again?
Yet another example. As a student, you take out a personal loan and pay it back with 7% interest. Later you take a loan to buy a car and pay that back with 7% interest too. When it comes time to buy a house, the bank tells you that the interest is 21% because you've taken loans from them twice before. It's your fault because you keep borrowing money, and because you're a repeat borrower, you should not be able to get away with the same interest as a new borrower. Does that make sense?
I'm glad you got my point.
My story was to illustrate that if there is no criminal records kept, then first time offenders would receive the same punishment as repeat offenders and because there is no deterence of a heavier penalty for repeat offenders, there will be more likelihood for them to commit crime again, knowing they would be dealt with, like a first time offender, each time.
The question here is whether there should be a criminal record and I'm saying yes. (can be erased if conditions are met)
You should not compare COE's and bank interest rates here.
-
And if you've read the thread since then, you'd have noticed that we've already gotten into addressing the deterrence issue, and research shows that it doesn't work.
I get your point and I still disagree with you, both on the unjustifiably punitive approach of increasing sentences for recidivists and on your refusal to see the parallels with the COE and interest rate examples. Put simply, if you've already paid once, having to pay again simply does not make sense.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Well, who would decide who wins, and what are the ground rules for a debate? In any case, my daily charge-out rate is $3000, so $1000 isn't particularly interesting.
Don't worry, we can always get someone to be a judge and up the sum on our next debate here.
Originally posted by Gedanken:And there's the rub. You're trying to prove something by its absence, and it would be an uphill battle for you. Pity - it would have been an easy three grand.
I was illustrating to you the simple fact that a longer jail term does increase the effect of deterrence, which I did. And if you don't like robbery having a one-day jail term, how about sentencing those who pee in the lift to a ten-year stay behind bars? I'm sure the effect of deterring more people from taking a leak in the lift is there, don't you agree? Now where's my $1,000?
Originally posted by Gedanken:Ah, but if you'd read the cited articles, you'd see that both used regression analyses, which do in fact imply causality.
No, I don't read those articles and reviews. But maybe I would in the future if I ever take up psychology as my university minor degree in years' time.
Originally posted by Gedanken:Gendreau and company in fact agree with you that a legitimate function of prisons is to take criminals off the street and keep the population safe. However, if you read their literature review, you'll see an argument supporting the "schools of crime" view, where prison stretches may in fact enchance criminality.
Well and good for the deterrence argument, but presenting the threat is a useless gesture if you're not willing to go through with it, and if you do go through with it, you could well end up producing a bigger criminal than you started out with in the first place. It's a lose-lose proposition.
It's more of a win-lose situation. Don't forget to account for the increased deterrence which will result in a smaller number of ex-offenders become recedivists. Between having more, but "smaller" criminals, as compared to having lesser, but "7% bigger" criminals, I would prefer the latter for saving more ex-offenders from their lives being destroyed by the very own crime they commit - again.
By the way, I've done some Googling over this topic, and many researchers mentioned that increasing the certainty of the punishment after a crime has been committed is a very effective source of deterrence. (I can back this one up in a short 15 minutes with many sources - just let me know if you're still as hard up on requiring proof for every statement I make in our casual debate.)
I have read the short excerpt regarding spent records earlier in this thread, and I'm pondering over whether the idea of placing a globally locatable tag on first-time offenders for the same length of time required to make their records spent (five years) in exchange of spent records from the moment they're released from jail would be viable.
Let me get this clear before you pounce on me and start calling me an inhuman control freak, Old Mr Gedanken. I'm suggesting this idea not because they need to be fully monitored and controlled by the authority due a mistake they did in the past, but the tag is meant as a form of deterrence via increasing the certainty of punishment, thereby making the ex-offenders aware that they're more than likely to be apprehended and punished if they ever do commit a crime in the next five years of their lives. The question is, would ex-offenders be willing to exchange their freedom in the present for their freedom from their past?
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
I was illustrating to you the simple fact that a longer jail term does increase the effect of deterrence, which I did. And if you don't like robbery having a one-day jail term, how about sentencing those who pee in the lift to a ten-year stay behind bars? I'm sure the effect of deterring more people from taking a leak in the lift is there, don't you agree? Now where's my $1,000?
Where's your evidence? You can postulate all you want, but where are the facts? Even though we're not changing any laws here, let's avoid having a hollow banter session and provide some substance to make it a fruitful discussion.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:No, I don't read those articles and reviews. But maybe I would in the future if I ever take up psychology as my university minor degree in years' time.
And if you ever do take up psychology, look me up if you ever need any tutoring. In the meantime, research is required to bring objectivity to the debate, otherwise we'd just be wasting time on ifs and buts. As the Yanks say, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:It's more of a win-lose situation. Don't forget to account for the increased deterrence which will result in a smaller number of ex-offenders become recedivists. Between having more, but "smaller" criminals, as compared to having lesser, but "7% bigger" criminals, I would prefer the latter for saving more ex-offenders from their lives being destroyed by the very own crime they commit - again.
There's nothing to account for - you still haven't demonstrated that increased sentences reduce recidivism. It's still lose-lose until you can provide proof (not just subjective propositions and assumptions) that increased sentences work.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:By the way, I've done some Googling over this topic, and many researchers mentioned that increasing the certainty of the punishment after a crime has been committed is a very effective source of deterrence. (I can back this one up in a short 15 minutes with many sources - just let me know if you're still as hard up on requiring proof for every statement I make in our casual debate.)
You see, here you get careless. Are we talking about increasing lengths of sentences, or about increasing the likelihood of getting caught and sentenced? If it's the latter, I have no disagreement that increased risk of getting caught will reduce the likihood of the person to decide to commit the crime. The former, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue, and one that I have yet to be convinced of.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:I have read the short excerpt regarding spent records earlier in this thread, and I'm pondering over whether the idea of placing a globally locatable tag on first-time offenders for the same length of time required to make their records spent (five years) in exchange of spent records from the moment they're released from jail would be viable.
First, what would knowing their location do? If a convicted fraudster is stealing from the office petty cash box, how does a locator help detect and prevent it? Second, why global? If a person commits a crime in another country, it's out of the SPF's jurisdiction anyway. Third, would regular (e.g. weekly) reviews and random spot checks by probation officers not be more effective in ascertaining what the ex-con has been doing, with the possible benefit of the opportunity to provide guidanceand keep the ex-con on the straight and narrow?
Originally posted by LatecomerX:Let me get this clear before you pounce on me and start calling me an inhuman control freak, Old Mr Gedanken. I'm suggesting this idea not because they need to be fully monitored and controlled by the authority due a mistake they did in the past, but the tag is meant as a form of deterrence via increasing the certainty of punishment, thereby making the ex-offenders aware that they're more than likely to be apprehended and punished if they ever do commit a crime in the next five years of their lives. The question is, would ex-offenders be willing to exchange their freedom in the present for their freedom from their past?
No, I don't think you're a control freak. As I wrote above, I agree that increased risk of getting caught is a step in the right direction. I'm not too sure that the loactor tag would contribute too much to this goal, but the general intent is sensible.
And who you calling old?!
-
Stop discriminating!
Ex-convicts should have the same treatment too! After all they too are human.
They should also be able to enjoy the benefits of modern technology.
They should also be able to use walkman, discman and mp3s.
Records are too old fashioned.
-
u reap wad u sow
if u make a mistake and is tagged under Criminal Record Office. that is your mistake. live with it. Im agreeable with the record being tagged to the personnel.
and another thing. for the company that im in, we dun look at record or education. we look at character, behavior and attitude.
i am working with some ex-convicts. some feel that they SHOULD be employed just because they are dip/degree holder lah blah blah blah. but whereas, there are some people, who tell you, Sir, let me work for the probationary period, i have experience in this industry, ill show you that im worthy of your time etc.
the offence that the person has committed is in the past. How u project yourself and market yourself is another thing. If you are talented, we want you(this phrase although copied from govt, but companies do want talents den ppl who play taiji at the workplace)
and yes, there is the Yellow Ribbon project for people to get employed.
no critism to anyone, just my opinion
-
Originally posted by corebooster:
i am working with some ex-convicts. some feel that they SHOULD be employed just because they are dip/degree holder lah blah blah blah.
How's that any different from people with whistle clean records who feel that they SHOULD be employed just because they are dip/degree holder lah blah blah blah?
So, do tell, what measures of character, behaviour and attitude do you use?
-
there are no differences between an ex-convict and a normal person. I will be appreciative of people who declare their past and be honest with me. . If they intend to keep mum about it, den sorry, out u go.
I said just now. u reap what u sow. if u really make a mistake. den u are punished. the record will be with u for the rest of your life (5years if a small crime). But the future is how u carry yourself and how u contribute to your future company, be an honest and responsible individual.
If i only find out myself that he was a ex-convict, then it would be dishonesty in my eyes.
first in eyes of company. ability to contribute and work and be an asset to the company.
in my eyes, a responsible and committed personnel who never fails to complete the tasks presented to him.
-
Originally posted by corebooster:
there are no differences between an ex-convict and a normal person.
That being the case, why did you make the point that they feel that they SHOULD be employed just because they are dip/degree holder lah blah blah blah?
I don't care for the rest of your judgementalism, ignorance or sanctimony - you've got your opinion and far be it from me to stop you airing it. I just want to know why you decided to whack that big red herring in the middle of all that pontification.
Well, that and your measures of character, behaviour and attitude. I'm dying to hear that one.
-
measures? ill see how they perform during their probationary period.
how they react when i ask them to OT, ask them to finish this task, when they cant finish a task, when they are facing a problem, . these are all measures that makes me rate this personnel.
well. in my opinion/experience, people with qualification at times will still lose out to people with experience and good attitude but no qualification(even they are ex-convicts)
-
Originally posted by corebooster:
measures? ill see how they perform during their probationary period.
how they react when i ask them to OT, ask them to finish this task, when they cant finish a task, when they are facing a problem, . these are all measures that makes me rate this personnel.
well. in my opinion/experience, people with qualification at times will still lose out to people with experience and good attitude but no qualification(even they are ex-convicts)
Well and good. So, what's it look like when someone has character? Do tell.
When you ask someone to do OT and he says yes, does it mean that he has character, or does it mean that he's just a yes man? Do tell.
What is it that they do when they're facing a problem that tell you that they have character? Do tell.
If they can't finish a task, does this mean that they don't have character? Do tell.
Upon what credentials do you position yourself as a judge of character? Do tell.
I wait with bated breath.
-
you find out yourself dude, coz we may be in different industries, but below is some of the more basic ways
by the way he work, the way he carry himself, the way he react. by observing the above, you will know, what type of person this is.
a gem will shine when polished. everyone is different.
-
Originally posted by corebooster:
you find out yourself dude, coz we may be in different industries, but below is some of the more basic ways
by the way he work, the way he carry himself, the way he react. by observing the above, you will know, what type of person this is.
a gem will shine when polished. everyone is different.
Wow, character changes from industry to industry? Do the management journal editors know about this?
As for the rest of it, what's that mean? As far as what you've written goes, it's all very mysterious, isn't it? Is this one of those "the Tao that can be described is not the true Tao, so wax on wax off" things?
Ah yes, a gem will shine when polished, and man who run in front of car soon get tired while man who run behind car soon get exhausted. Wise words indeed. *strokes beard*
-
different industries require personnels of different calibre. well my piece is said. thats all.
-
Originally posted by corebooster:
different industries require personnels of different calibre. well my piece is said. thats all.
But hang on - you mean that experience, character and attitude are specific to certain industries? That's not what you said earlier. Would polishing gems while perched on lotus leaves help solve this mystery?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Where's your evidence? You can postulate all you want, but where are the facts? Even though we're not changing any laws here, let's avoid having a hollow banter session and provide some substance to make it a fruitful discussion.
And if you ever do take up psychology, look me up if you ever need any tutoring. In the meantime, research is required to bring objectivity to the debate, otherwise we'd just be wasting time on ifs and buts. As the Yanks say, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
There's nothing to account for - you still haven't demonstrated that increased sentences reduce recidivism. It's still lose-lose until you can provide proof (not just subjective propositions and assumptions) that increased sentences work.
You see, here you get careless. Are we talking about increasing lengths of sentences, or about increasing the likelihood of getting caught and sentenced? If it's the latter, I have no disagreement that increased risk of getting caught will reduce the likihood of the person to decide to commit the crime. The former, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue, and one that I have yet to be convinced of.
First, what would knowing their location do? If a convicted fraudster is stealing from the office petty cash box, how does a locator help detect and prevent it? Second, why global? If a person commits a crime in another country, it's out of the SPF's jurisdiction anyway. Third, would regular (e.g. weekly) reviews and random spot checks by probation officers not be more effective in ascertaining what the ex-con has been doing, with the possible benefit of the opportunity to provide guidanceand keep the ex-con on the straight and narrow?
No, I don't think you're a control freak. As I wrote above, I agree that increased risk of getting caught is a step in the right direction. I'm not too sure that the loactor tag would contribute too much to this goal, but the general intent is sensible.
And who you calling old?!
It seems like all I need is some statistics to back up my first argument...here it is:
"...an additional month in expected sentence reduces the propensity to recommit a crime by 1.24 percent" - http://ftp.iza.org/dp2912.pdf
Can I have my $1,000 now?
Anyway, thanks for the offer for tuition. But I can't afford tuition fees of $300/day, let alone $3,000/day. When necessary, I'll just consult my sister who will be graduating from university with a psychology major later this year.
And yes, in the later parts of my post, I'm referring to increased certainty of punishment. No careless mistakes there - not to worry.
The locator is not meant to detect and prevent crimes, but rather to deter ex-offenders from committing crimes thinking that they have a chance of escaping from punishment. In the case of the cash box theft, the ex-offender should realize before he commits the crime that there's no way of escaping once they discover that the thief is him. And in the case where the crime is committed outside Singapore, the locator can still be used to assist the law enforcers in the respective country to locate and apprehend the criminal, thus deterrence from increased certainty of punishment remains in effect.
Regular reviews from probation officers for the first few weeks after release to help the ex-offenders to re-integrate back into the society would be a good idea, but doing so over five years for every ex-offender would not be cost-effective. Here, deterrence wins but only for being a cheaper alternative to re-education. Of course, as deterrence and re-education are not mutually exclusive, it would be the best to implement both whenever possible.
Last but not least, I believe someone who uses the German word for "thought" for a forum username should be pretty old, don't you think so?
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
It seems like all I need is some statistics to back up my first argument...here it is:
"...an additional month in expected sentence reduces the propensity to recommit a crime by 1.24 percent" - http://ftp.iza.org/dp2912.pdf
Can I have my $1,000 now?
Nothin' doin'. Have you actually read the article?
Actually, you don't even have to read the rest of the article - the sentences following your quoted bit from the abstract state: "However, this effect depends on the time
previously served in prison: the behavioural response to an additional month of expected sentence decreases with the length of the prison spell. This second result can be hardly reconciled with the specific deterrence hypothesis according to which a stronger past experience of punishment should increase the sensitivity to future expected sanctions."Looking further into the article, you'll see that it's conceptually flawed. They're trying to equate residual sentence at the time of clemency granting with additional sentencing time. That's like trying to equate a discount with a penalty clause, the key difference being that the former is a gift while the latter is additional cost.
The data in fact tells the opposite story to Drago's proposal. It's not the threat of greater sanctions that reduces recidivism - the bigger the break that the person gets (i.e. sentence reduction), the more the ex-con appreciates it and stays on the straight and narrow.
You got that three grand ready? Cash is preferred, but a bank (not personal) cheque will do.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:Anyway, thanks for the offer for tuition. But I can't afford tuition fees of $300/day, let alone $3,000/day. When necessary, I'll just consult my sister who will be graduating from university with a psychology major later this year.
Gimme a holler anyway. When I was doing my DPsych, I must have written off at least ten grand worth of tuition fees tutoring Honours students with theses that seemed interesting enough. Money's not a major driver for me - it just spices things up a little.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:And yes, in the later parts of my post, I'm referring to increased certainty of punishment. No careless mistakes there - not to worry.
The locator is not meant to detect and prevent crimes, but rather to deter ex-offenders from committing crimes thinking that they have a chance of escaping from punishment. In the case of the cash box theft, the ex-offender should realize before he commits the crime that there's no way of escaping once they discover that the thief is him. And in the case where the crime is committed outside Singapore, the locator can still be used to assist the law enforcers in the respective country to locate and apprehend the criminal, thus deterrence from increased certainty of punishment remains in effect.
Regular reviews from probation officers for the first few weeks after release to help the ex-offenders to re-integrate back into the society would be a good idea, but doing so over five years for every ex-offender would not be cost-effective. Here, deterrence wins but only for being a cheaper alternative to re-education. Of course, as deterrence and re-education are not mutually exclusive, it would be the best to implement both whenever possible.
No disagreement to the above, just so long as it's taken as being distinct from the argument in favour of longer sentences.
Originally posted by LatecomerX:Last but not least, I believe someone who uses the German word for "thought" for a forum username should be pretty old, don't you think so?
Not really - I've been using this nick on this and other forums since I was in my early twenties.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
No disagreement to the above, just so long as it's taken as being distinct from the argument in favour of longer sentences.
Not really - I've been using this nick on this and other forums since I was in my early twenties.
LOL.Somehow i got this feeling u sound very old. Hahaha.
-
Originally posted by seotiblizzard:
LOL.
Somehow i got this feeling u sound very old. Hahaha.
I'm not old - I'm just grumpy.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
I'm not old - I'm just grumpy.
G'day mate, I(we) may not agree with everything you've said but you do have some valid and interesting comments.Wish you a non-grumpy day!
Cheers
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Nothin' doin'. Have you actually read the article?
Actually, you don't even have to read the rest of the article - the sentences following your quoted bit from the abstract state: "However, this effect depends on the time
previously served in prison: the behavioural response to an additional month of expected sentence decreases with the length of the prison spell. This second result can be hardly reconciled with the specific deterrence hypothesis according to which a stronger past experience of punishment should increase the sensitivity to future expected sanctions."Looking further into the article, you'll see that it's conceptually flawed. They're trying to equate residual sentence at the time of clemency granting with additional sentencing time. That's like trying to equate a discount with a penalty clause, the key difference being that the former is a gift while the latter is additional cost.
The data in fact tells the opposite story to Drago's proposal. It's not the threat of greater sanctions that reduces recidivism - the bigger the break that the person gets (i.e. sentence reduction), the more the ex-con appreciates it and stays on the straight and narrow.
You got that three grand ready? Cash is preferred, but a bank (not personal) cheque will do.
Gimme a holler anyway. When I was doing my DPsych, I must have written off at least ten grand worth of tuition fees tutoring Honours students with theses that seemed interesting enough. Money's not a major driver for me - it just spices things up a little.
No disagreement to the above, just so long as it's taken as being distinct from the argument in favour of longer sentences.
Not really - I've been using this nick on this and other forums since I was in my early twenties.
There's really very few articles on the net that compares deterrence against changes in jail term, and the one above was the closest I could find. What's your bank account no.? I guess I'll probably be losing that $3,000.
I just would like to query more about the idea regarding selective disqualification. How does it differ from the current, common job application form whereby they require you to state whether you have a past jail record along with details stated?
-
Originally posted by Darkknighthuang:
G'day mate, I(we) may not agree with everything you've said but you do have some valid and interesting comments.Wish you a non-grumpy day!
Cheers
Thanks, DKH. To be frank, my politics lean too far to the right for me to actually support anything I've put forward. Once in a while, I just like having a bit of intellectual exercise arguing for a position that I wouldn't normally take, so whether we agree is not a big deal.
-
Originally posted by LatecomerX:
There's really very few articles on the net that compares deterrence against changes in jail term, and the one above was the closest I could find. What's your bank account no.? I guess I'll probably be losing that $3,000.
I just would like to query more about the idea regarding selective disqualification. How does it differ from the current, common job application form whereby they require you to state whether you have a past jail record along with details stated?
Pfft. Buy me a kopi-o the next time I'm in town and we'll call it even.
The difference between something like a disqualified-persons list and the job application for question is when and in what circumstances the inquiry can be made. For example, if someone has been convicted of fraud, a potential employer in the financial sector can make the enquiry under both systems. On the other hand, if the same person applied for a job at the at a McDonald's counter, the disqualified person's list would be inaccessible to the employer because, frankly, it's none of his business. In contrast, the McDonald's manager can ask the jail record question, which could put the applicant at a disadvantage.