Тег: Prison

Prisons have become tiresome for everyone – even for Americans

Imagine you are stuck in an elevator with a stranger who believes that putting people in prison for longer is a great idea for solving all of society’s problems. He believes that people should live in fear of such an outcome, and then crime will vanish. Rolling your eyes, you reply: “Sure, that helps a lot, especially if you need a new criminal buddy or a free survival course for when everyone around you is a wolf.”

And now for the surprise: more and more people are starting to think like you. For example, as a recent study by the University of Cincinnati shows, Americans who for decades believed that prison was the best remedy for crime have finally stopped being fans of mass incarceration. The study confirms: most US citizens prefer to direct non-violent offenders toward rehabilitation programs, treatment, or community service.

Now Americans do not want to build more prisons, and many of them consider the prison system unfair. Yes, the very people who once voted for laws like “Three Strikes and You’re Out” now admit that mass incarceration is not cool, is expensive, and is completely ineffective.

And how about other countries? Even better! Look at the Netherlands. Over the last 20 years, they have closed about 20 prisons. The Dutch literally don’t know what to do with the empty prisons anymore. They are opening hotels and creative spaces there. Imagine: a tour of a former prison with cocktails and modern art. Why is this happening? Because they realized that sending a person to prison for petty theft or drugs is roughly the same as putting out a fire with gasoline. A person rarely becomes a saint after prison. More often than not, prison doesn’t reform a person; it ruins them completely.

In Germany, most offenses are already punished with fines. The Germans reason simply: why spend taxpayers’ money on maintaining petty offenders? It’s better for offenders to replenish the budget with fines than to sit behind bars at our expense. And the Scandinavian countries have gone even further. There, prisons are even called “schools of life”: prisoners are helped to socialize, given education and work, and when crime decreases, the prisons are simply closed.

In our case, of course, we have our own atmosphere. Historically, incarceration was a common occurrence in Russia. In 2000, we had more than 700 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants—a record level for a developed country. Fortunately, by 2023, the figure had dropped to 300. That is already better, although still very high!

Why is society turning its back on prisons? There are many reasons. For example, prisons cost an insane amount of money. It is much cheaper and more sensible to invest funds in education and crime prevention. Also, prison does not reform people, but more often turns them into recidivists. A person comes out with a ruined resume, a damaged psyche, and criminal connections. Not exactly the result society needs. Additionally, humanism is an important reason—people have realized that a criminal is also a human being and should not be tortured in prison. Punishment should not be revenge, but an opportunity to fix something.

What are the alternatives? There are plenty of good solutions. First and foremost is restorative justice—where the offender directly compensates the victim for the damage. It works better than prison and costs less. Probation and community service should also be considered—the person is under strict control but remains in society. This way, they do not fall out of life and are more likely to be reformed. Furthermore, treatment would be an excellent alternative—even violent criminals do not deserve inhumane treatment, and instead of a repressive approach, it would be far more effective to correct the dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism using therapeutic methods, thereby completely eliminating recidivism.

Prisons already look like an old-fashioned punishment from past centuries. Spend billions and get a bunch of embittered people back? Even former ardent supporters of punitive measures are beginning to understand: to combat crime, it is not enough to simply lock people up and forget about them!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Stanford Prison Experiment – can a person become cruel if their social role requires it?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Continuing the theme of experiments that allegedly demonstrate the violent nature of humans and their willingness to cause pain and harm to others if circumstances demand it, it is worth considering the Stanford Prison Experiment. This experiment is as well-known as the Milgram experiment we considered earlier. Its published data suggest a willingness of the majority of people to inflict pain on others on the orders of an authority figure. However, as an analysis of unpublished data showed, 56% of participants stopped as soon as they felt the victim was actually experiencing pain, and 72% of those who continued to participate did so because they did not believe in the authenticity of the experiment and the reality of the pain caused to the victim (and indeed there was no pain, only acting). But while in the case of the Milgram experiment the issue was merely about unpublished data, the Stanford Prison Experiment turned out to be completely baseless.

The participants of the experiment were divided into two categories—guards and prisoners—who lived in a simulated prison. All participants were expected to play their respective roles. But, as published data suggest, the experiment soon became truly dangerous. The guards began to cruelly abuse the prisoners, and a third of them displayed sadistic tendencies. Two prisoners were even excluded from the experiment due to the psychological trauma they suffered, and the experiment itself was stopped prematurely for ethical reasons. For nearly 50 years, many believed in the reality of these results and their corresponding conclusions. However, a series of pieces of evidence has recently been revealed that completely refutes this experiment. We will now consider some of them.

First, as the experiment’s organizer Philip Zimbardo assured, the participants were free in their actions, and those playing the role of guards received no prior training. In reality, however, the guards were aware of the expected results of the experiment; they were given clear instructions on how to act in various situations, and efforts were made to instill in them the belief that they were assistants to the experimenters in this study.

Second, and very importantly, the participants understood the requirements of the experiment in advance and corresponded to them. As Zimbardo claimed, the requirements for participation were minimal. However, almost all potential participants understood, for example, that guards were required to be despotic, hostile, and aggressive. This led to the assumption that participants, due to a clear understanding of their role, may have played it to the fullest extent in order to ensure the success of the experiment. In fact, after some time, they stated that they were only playing a role. They also always understood that they were participants in an experiment, that they were being observed, and that none of it was real.

I would like to draw attention to one more point. Such an understanding of the upcoming role could have influenced the selection of participants in favor of those with tendencies toward more cruel behavior, since that was exactly the behavior required. And can an experiment for which more cruel people may have been selected say anything about the cruelty of the average person?

There are many other facts that cast doubt on the experiment. It is worth remembering the participants who had to leave it due to psychological trauma. One of them later admitted that he only simulated a psychosis because he did not like the experiment and wanted to leave as quickly as possible. The unrealistic nature of the experimental conditions should also be understood. And finally, the researchers did not provide all the data—out of 150 hours of the experiment, only 15% were recorded (6 hours of video and 15 hours of audio). Very little personal data was collected from the participants, which could have influenced the course of the experiment.

Sources:

  1. Thibault Le Texier (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment;
  2. Ben Blum (2018). The Lifespan of a Lie.

How did the courts work during anarchy?

Right now I am living in Albania in the village of Theth, 50m from a majestic historical monument – Kulla e Nguemit – the tower of conflict resolution.

This unique structure was used by locals to handle legal matters. If a dispute arises – go to the tower, sit there on a rug, and discuss your issue over rakia, in the presence of mediators if necessary.

If you cannot reach an agreement within a reasonable timeframe – they will lock you in there, and you can negotiate as much as you like. Food will be brought to you.

Finally, if someone plotted something evil against you – run to the tower, lock yourself in, and fire back from the top floor, while simultaneously negotiating the terms of reconciliation. Thus, we have an elegant combination of a courthouse and a prison in one package, which is quite economically justified for a small village. Prisons in the ancap sense – that is, a refuge from retribution.

In short, most smart things were already thought of before us. Our task is to comprehend them, provide a theoretical basis, generalize, and then implement them on a new level of understanding.

The next step in the evolution of humanism

Voluntarist, Bitarch

We all know well how the history of punishments for offenses has evolved. In the distant past, the death penalty was an acceptable, if not mandatory, measure in the event of violations of various social orders. Usually, this concerned religious norms and traditional life principles. Burning, hanging, or stoning could occur for some kind of “witchcraft,” for treason, for non-traditional sexual relations, for theft, or even simply for words that contradicted the dominant opinion in society. And this was considered absolutely normal; violence bothered few people—on the contrary, crowds of onlookers often gathered to watch such a spectacle.

Over time, the scope of the application of the death penalty has steadily shrunk. This punishment was abolished for non-violent crimes; it remained only as a supreme measure against particularly distinguished brutal rapists. But even this did not last long; in most developed countries, this measure was soon completely abandoned and replaced by imprisonment. And punishments for non-violent crimes became even more lenient.

But even this cannot be called a desirable state of affairs. Of course, many are still at the very beginning of the path of humanism, and in some countries, one can still be stoned for treason, theft, or an improper lifestyle. But at the same time, some societies have already surpassed everyone else in the development of humanism. A good example is Norway, where even the most hardened rapist, Anders Breivik, was placed, effectively, in luxury quarters with all amenities. Of course, he was deprived of his liberty—this is still a coercive measure—but the punishment ends there; besides the loss of liberty, nothing bad awaits the prisoner. In general, the Norwegian law enforcement system is one of the most humane in the world; several prisons are closed annually due to a lack of prisoners, and those who do end up in incarceration have many benefits and considerable freedom (including movement) within the prison institution. To some, it may seem extremely surprising that prisoners can freely, solely of their own will, go to the football field, the library, or the kitchen, and in the latter, kitchen knives may even be at their disposal. But for some societies, this is already a reality.

Now I want to make a small note regarding why we should be humane at all. This may seem completely unfair in the case of certain categories of criminals. But the answer is quite simple and obvious: to carry out violent punishments, we need people prone to violence. If no one can pull the trigger at the sight of an unarmed person, then a death sentence cannot be carried out. However, if someone is capable of doing this, nothing will stop them from killing not only to execute the “supreme measure,” but also to punish insignificant and non-violent offenses, or even to pursue personal goals or satisfy their violent nature.

By making violence a normal phenomenon, even as a measure of punishment, we contribute to the negative selection of the species Homo sapiens in favor of people more prone to violence. Without this, there would be no executioners, who are necessary for a legal system based on force. But an executioner can always become a rapist, and by fostering executioners, we cannot help but foster rapists in general. And it will be impossible to restrain this phenomenon. If a person is not prone to initiating violence, they will not commit it regardless of what views they hold. If a person has such inclinations, then with a change in views, only the circle of victims of their violence will change, but in general, there will always be victims. They will also always initiate violence in situations that provoke it, for example, in conflicts, quarrels, when raising children, and in many other cases. Violence in society will only increase, and the problems of violence will worsen.

In some societies, executioners have almost disappeared; there are only people capable of limiting the freedom of others by force, and even then, not fully. But this is not the end of the development of humanism, because according to the scenario we described, by fostering even such minimal agents of force, we will quite possibly get people who, while perhaps not as dangerous, are still capable of initiating violence. This, among other things, will be enough to maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance in society (the current state system). Likewise, the development of scientific and technical progress will be impossible due to the probability of catastrophic consequences for all mankind if (or rather, when) dangerous technologies fall into the hands of a person prone to violence. Therefore, we need to take one more step in the development of humanism.

This step is the complete renunciation of the initiation of violence, including for the execution of punishments. The only scenario in which violence may be permissible is defense against a direct attack. This is defensive violence; people capable only of such violence pose no problem, as they cannot initiate violent actions themselves for any reason whatsoever, including the fact that they cannot create and maintain a violent hierarchy of dominance, as it requires precisely the initiation of violence in the form of forcing people into submission. Such a behavioral model is evolutionarily optimal for all highly armed species in nature, one of which is Homo sapiens thanks to the ability to manufacture weapons. In all other cases, non-forceful measures of pressure and punishment must be used against criminals and violators of order. These can be various reputational and financial instruments.

This step is a natural continuation of the process of making society more humane, which has already lasted for many centuries and has currently led us from the permissibility of widespread killing to punishments that, while still forceful, are quite lenient and involve only the restriction of freedom without depriving one of the benefits necessary for leading a normal life. This step is needed to further suppress, and in perspective, eradicate violence as a phenomenon as a whole. This is the next stage in the evolution of man and human society. Let us contribute to this process, rather than hindering it and sliding back into violent barbarism!

When the forest is cut, chips fly

Why is it that in many ancient narratives, ostracism/exile was mentioned as the only punishment, even for the most terrible criminals—murderers and rapists?

A truly interesting observation, for which even I could not find an answer for a long time. After all, no one was running a campaign for the humanization of punishments back then. Nor were there opportunities for a criminal to threaten significant damage to the entire society in the event of their arrest (the first mention of such a deterrence model was described by John von Neumann as “M.A.D.” after World War II, and even then it was realistic only for large group subjects—states, but not for individual actors).

So, the most plausible version is the extremely high value of human life in the described societies. For if people tried to arrest a criminal who was not initiating violence at that moment, he would likely be able to kill several people who came for him. In those societies, such a risk was considered unacceptable, so people simply motivated the villain to leave the community, ceasing all interaction with him. In mathematical terms, this solution was optimal in the game-theory matrix.

A different matter is strictly hierarchical etatist societies, where the phrase “The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is statistics” is a norm of life. There, sacrificing even a hundred security officers to arrest one person is a good way to demonstrate the power of the stationary bandit (the state), so that others fear to contradict it. As for the fact that the mothers of the fallen security officers will cry at their graves, that is nothing terrible; “when the forest is cut, chips fly.” You can provide a survivor’s benefit in the amount of two minimum wages, and they will even kiss the portrait of the “radiant leader.”

What conclusion can be drawn from this? If you support physical punishments, including the use of violence for the confiscation of property, and justify this by a “court decision,” then you are not a libertarian! You are a vile authoritarian bastard like Hitler and Pol Pot, for whom “the death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is statistics.”

Bitarch