Here's an idea: let people "work off" their criminal records

[cjn]

The Idea:

Allow expungement of criminal records upon completion of community service.

...How about this: instead of having to pay to wipe the slate clean, why not do something good instead?

This should be how criminal records are handled. I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong.

I agree that we have a massive problem with our justice system, but I will also go ahead and prove you wrong:

The criminal justice system we have attributes a quantified value to a crime for which a citizen has been convicted. This quantified value is the "debt" that said citizen has to the society which they have been convicted of harming. We, as mortal beings, are born with two intrinsic things of value, which we exchange for everything that we consume throughout our lives: time and our physical body. For those that are incarcerated, the debt is measured in "time" (one of our finite resources), as agreed upon by a judge and/or jury -granted such power through the social contract. Thus the convicted citizen repays their agreed-upon "dept" to society through incarceration. Which means, they should be at "0" balance. This is the nature of the compact: you incurred a debt, you paid the debt, you are no longer indebted.

Now, we both know that is not how the system works in the real world. Despite paying off your quantified and socially agreed-to debt, you're continually being penalized for something that you thought was absolved -you, in fact, traded a resource you can never recover to do-so. The problem isn't with the citizen convicted, it is with a society which has agreed to a "debt" and then requires more punishment beyond the contract. One shouldn't have to "work off their records"; our society should be prohibited from prejudicing against those who have repaid their debt (to-which the society has agreed was sufficient!).

Beyond the stigma that is attached to having deviated so strongly from the social norms which resulted in a criminal conviction, I think that a primary reason that citizens have a strong bias against felons is due to the perception that they were not punished sufficiently enough to ensure that they would not commit felonies in the future. While our sentences may be long, I don't believe that the conditions are severe enough to have someone think to themselves "I'd rather not have/do _"x"_ than ever go to prison again". Instead, you see a conscious decision to conduct a crime knowing the consequences are tolerable based upon previous experiences. I think the vast majority of the public would support shorter sentences (which the convicted would also favor), in exchange for an experience which adequately deters recidivism. Note: I'm not advocating physical harm, but for a confinement which includes no amenities outside of books, no personal effects, no food outside of the most unpleasant nutritious pastes, and no communication with the outside world beyond family/lawyer visits.

At the same time, to reduce recidivism, the imprisoned should be required to attend daily educational courses and training (like all children are required to go to school), they should be required to produce things of value which can go towards paying down their monetary debts, and they should be prepared by the institution for release to an environment which does not have them with the same social circles from their past with employment aligned (as interest and conditions support).

 

[Vanadium 50]

The whole problem with the "start over at 0" theory is that it doesn't work even in non-criminal situations. Our present situations are all due to the accumulated decisions we made in the past. (Again, not talking about criminality here) So there is no way to take someone who has left prison and "reset" things as if he had never committed a crime, been sentenced and incarcerated.

 

[Choppy]

Thus the convicted citizen repays their agreed-upon "dept" to society through incarceration. Which means, they should be at "0" balance. This is the nature of the compact: you incurred a debt, you paid the debt, you are no longer indebted.

I think this is a huge over-simplification. Committing a crime is not taking out a mortgage. When a crimial has served a sentence the imapct of the crime hasn't gone away.

This issue is that trust is something that's very fragile, and just like a leg that gets mangled in a combine harvester, you might be able to pick up the pieces, re-build and move on, but sometimes the prosthetic is the best you're going to get.

Beyond the stigma that is attached to having deviated so strongly from the social norms which resulted in a criminal conviction, I think that a primary reason that citizens have a strong bias against felons is due to the perception that they were not punished sufficiently enough to ensure that they would not commit felonies in the future. While our sentences may be long, I don't believe that the conditions are severe enough to have someone think to themselves "I'd rather not have/do _"x"_ than ever go to prison again". Instead, you see a conscious decision to conduct a crime knowing the consequences are tolerable based upon previous experiences.

This is a classic way of thinking about crime and punishment, but criminologists have more sophisticated models for understanind the motivations behind crime. It's not classic game theory any more. Most crime is not perpetrated by a person making a rational, informed decision weighing the risks versus gains. Crime is the result of social pressures, addictions and habits, psychological perceptions and normative rationalization, cultural and social conflicts, and individual decisions.

People in general have a bais against felons because convictions are tangible evidence that someone has broken the law. In the face of such evidence when weighed against an absence of criminal activity people are naturally going to favour non-felons, because such situations (ie. hiring, deciding who is going to babysit your kids, etc.) are often scenarios where we do often take advantage rational thought.

At the same time, to reduce recidivism, the imprisoned should be required to attend daily educational courses and training (like all children are required to go to school), they should be required to produce things of value which can go towards paying down their monetary debts, and they should be prepared by the institution for release to an environment which does not have them with the same social circles from their past with employment aligned (as interest and conditions support).

This works in some cases. The biggest challenge is that quality educational programs cost money. And it's hard to convince the taxpayer that your teachers should be in the prisons giving second chances when they're spread thin enough across those on their first chances.

 

[Muti]

You can't change your past, but, you can change your future. It's a choice. Be the person you hope to be, not the one you were. Take a menial job, be humble and honorable, and start from there. When you make good choices, opportunity will find you.

I agree with Chronos, OP I you want to change then then these hurdles must not stop you. Speaking in "men" words, why you want to be a "worker". Start some kind of business (for which you think you have some skills). I you work hard in business no doubt you would be much better than a "worker". NOTE: Peoples do not get offended, I too am a "worker" ... Hahaha

 

[Siv]

Interesting topic.
It would also be interesting to research if true "reform" is ever possible. Can a criminal (not petty crimes, but something fairly serious) ever really change?

My own opinion ...
Human nature is malleable to some extent, but not tremendously so, especially after a certain age.
So, if there is a history of substance abuse and/or violence, these may be genetic predispositions.
But again, if the crime is a tremendously opportunistic one, people may deserve a second chance.

The other fact is that human nature is pretty ugly ... so, maybe with the right incentive/opportunity, everyone could be induced to some crime.
Lets also not forget how accurate and unbiased the law and order system of a particular country/region is. A lot depends on that.

Its complicated