Active Users:631 Time:10/06/2026 07:37:19 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: That's silly though Burr Send a noteboard - 05/03/2010 11:11:50 PM
There is some percentage at which it becomes either more practical or more ethical (or both) to release everyone.

Not really. The only way your 'example' could ever come up is if the government never jailed any REAL criminals and let them run loose. Not even the worst governments have that poor a record. It will never be anything like that.

It is an important question because of its implications for determining what counts as having been rehabilitated. If you have 100,000 thieves with an average 5% probability of reoffending, then you know about 99,500 of them are rehabilitated and 500 of them aren't, but you can't necessarily identify which ones are which. Is it practical or ethical to continue the imprisonment of 99,500 rehabilitated prisoners just because you can't identify the 500 non-rehabilitated prisoners? If so, then what if the probability of reoffending were even less, so that there were only 1 non-rehabilitated prisoner among two million rehabilitated prisoners? At what percentage does the balance lie?

Recidivism isn't innocence and this is still a waste of time argument. In actuality, recidivism isn't that hard to predict if you don't have a political agenda. Of course, no system is foolproof so you will invariably release some folks who will re-offend and keep some who never would.


If innocence were the appropriate metric, then all prison sentences would be life sentences. If we'd rather concern ourselves with reasonable measures, then it is far more relevant that a rehabilitated prisoner set free poses no more risk or harm to society than any other person.

However you will quite simply never reach some kind of extreme 'we have to let everyone go now'.


Hundreds of juvenile convictions by one corrupt judge were tossed out about a year ago, and the juveniles' records were expunged. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/26/national/main4895883.shtml) Likely, due process was violated for all of them. But it was, say, within the realm of plausibility for investigators to find a e-mail where the corrupt judge states something like, "65% of your wards you only got because of me, Harry." Therefore, it was within the realm of plausibility for the situation to match my hypothetical one. Thus, it is not some kind of extreme even in the particular.

Besides, if you couldn't identify WHO was going to re-offend, how could you ever have the stats you describe above? The entire thing is nonsensical.


The stats are modeled on past observations of appropriate samples of similar prisoners. That's why you don't know who; you only know the aggregate behavior that a reasonable person should expect.
||||||||||*MySmiley*
Only so evil.
This message last edited by Burr on 05/03/2010 at 11:13:57 PM
Reply to message
A level-of-comfort question regarding imprisonment of mixed innocent and guilty groups. Burr - 05/03/2010 02:39:53 AM 328 Views
as things stands, I don't think we'd ever reach a level where that'd be necessary oO LadyLorraine - 05/03/2010 03:24:07 AM 206 Views
100% Isaac - 05/03/2010 03:47:31 AM 212 Views
Law of averages says there are certainly many innocent people in prison. Joel - 05/03/2010 04:09:41 AM 198 Views
Doesn't matter Isaac - 05/03/2010 04:22:19 AM 188 Views
It does, in so far as it makes appeals a necessary option. Joel - 05/03/2010 04:35:13 AM 190 Views
Did I say they weren't? Isaac - 05/03/2010 05:52:18 AM 218 Views
Nope. Joel - 15/03/2010 06:14:33 AM 168 Views
You know Scalia said something like that last year Roland00 - 05/03/2010 04:37:00 PM 196 Views
'Something'? Quotes are nice Isaac - 05/03/2010 05:07:00 PM 182 Views
Clarification: X% of them definitely did not meet the standards of reasonable doubt. Burr - 05/03/2010 09:44:09 PM 172 Views
It's a pointless question Isaac - 06/03/2010 06:36:08 AM 173 Views
A relevant question; it seems to hinge on where one draws the line. Joel - 05/03/2010 04:19:34 AM 175 Views
I never really liked silly questions like this SilverWarder - 05/03/2010 02:23:36 PM 206 Views
If there were 2,000,000 innocent and only 1 guilty, retrying everyone would not be practical. Burr - 05/03/2010 09:22:16 PM 177 Views
That's silly though SilverWarder - 05/03/2010 09:39:53 PM 184 Views
Re: That's silly though Burr - 05/03/2010 11:11:50 PM 192 Views
Re: That's silly though SilverWarder - 06/03/2010 12:11:06 AM 175 Views
Re: That's silly though Burr - 06/03/2010 04:30:20 AM 168 Views
The answer is not "I don't know" it's SilverWarder - 07/03/2010 08:50:50 AM 167 Views
what does the chance of reoffending have to do with guilt? random thoughts - 05/03/2010 10:02:21 PM 164 Views
Debt can be paid off, leaving the question of rehabilitation. *NM* Burr - 05/03/2010 10:32:38 PM 67 Views
I still don't see the realtionship to guilt random thoughts - 05/03/2010 10:59:28 PM 157 Views
Re: I still don't see the realtionship to guilt Burr - 05/03/2010 11:31:51 PM 171 Views
there is a reason they call it the justice system and not the rehabilation system random thoughts - 05/03/2010 11:33:55 PM 188 Views
It's called all kinds of things SilverWarder - 06/03/2010 12:02:00 AM 186 Views
Re: It's called all kinds of things random thoughts - 06/03/2010 05:44:32 AM 176 Views
Well, we aren't going to agree at all (and I DID say it was opinion) SilverWarder - 07/03/2010 09:00:37 AM 149 Views
there is no perfect system random thoughts - 05/03/2010 04:58:16 PM 182 Views
Reason Article inside Roland00 - 05/03/2010 10:34:40 PM 213 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes