←back to thread

Working on databases from prison

(turso.tech)
849 points dvektor | 1 comments | 16 Jun 25 12:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.24s | source
Show context
mlissner ◴[16 Jun 25 14:28 UTC] No.44289885[source]▶
Maine's remote work program is an incredibly promising development to prevent recidivism. The amazing thing about it is that it gives real jobs to prisoners that they can seamlessly continue after they get out of prison. Normally when you get out, it's impossible to get a job, and the clock is ticking. This leads to desperation, which leads to bad behavior.

There is a real risk of exploitation, but if it's properly managed, remote work for prisoners is one of the most hopeful things I've heard about the prison system. It gives people purpose while there and an avenue to success once they're out.

replies(7): >>44290046 #>>44290150 #>>44291513 #>>44291690 #>>44293165 #>>44293193 #>>44293353 #
lo_zamoyski ◴[16 Jun 25 14:43 UTC] No.44290046[source]▶
This sounds good. It is important that we recognize all of the purposes of punishment instead of overemphasizing one or neglecting the other.

Punishment has three ends: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. It is important that you pay for your crime for the sake of justice; it is charitable and prudent to rehabilitate the criminal, satisfying the corrective end of punishment; and would-be criminals must be given tangible evidence of what awaits them if they choose to indulge an evil temptation, thus acting as a deterrent.

In our systems today, we either neglect correction, leaving people to rot in prison or endanger them with recidivism by throwing them back onto the streets with no correction, or we take an attitude of false compassion toward the perp by failing to inflict adequate justice, incidentally failing the deterrent end in the process.

replies(7): >>44290096 #>>44290114 #>>44290672 #>>44290699 #>>44290776 #>>44295273 #>>44295295 #
nlitened ◴[16 Jun 25 15:54 UTC] No.44290776[source]▶
I think there's also a fourth "end" to prison punishment, but I don't know the proper name for it.

It's when you remove the dangerous person from a society for a while, so they can't commit crimes for that while. This is very important part of prison punishment with people with criminal tendencies, and this is why recidivists get longer prison sentences for each subsequent repetition of a similar crime.

Unfortunately we have to admit that some (small) percentage of criminals cannot be rehabilitated, so they must be isolated from society.

replies(1): >>44291656 #
1. ChadNauseam ◴[16 Jun 25 17:42 UTC] No.44291656[source]▶
The technical term is incapacitation. (Other commenters in this thread are also referring to it as “removal”.)

For criminals that act alone, variations in the severity of the sentence doesn’t seem to have the impact you might expect it to have on how much it actually deters people. (And there is the issue that people in prison can share strategies between themselves for how to more effectively commit crime, which is not an ideal outcome.) So indeed, incapacitation is a very important factor. When it’s studied, you often see numbers like “increasing the sentence by 10 years prevents 0.2 crimes due to deterrence and 0.9 crimes due to incapacitation”.

I say this applies to people acting alone because, although I have no proof, I suspect that organized crime is a bit more “rational” in their response to changes in sentencing. If sentencing were set up so that engaging in a category of crime was not profitable for the criminal organization, I’m pretty sure they would realize this and stop. This logic doesn’t apply to individual people, because the average person committing a crime has no idea what the sentence is or their odds of getting caught, and they obviously don’t do it often enough that the random variation is amortized out.