Discussion The Prison Illusion: A Society That Punishes to Avoid Responsibility

[L'absent]

Prison is not justice; it is a collective illusion, the fetish of a society incapable of looking in the mirror. It is the symptom of a culture that prefers to punish rather than understand, repress rather than transform, seek revenge rather than heal. Every prison cell built is a monument to the hypocrisy of those who pretend to fight crime without ever questioning why it exists. Prison is nothing more than a giant social dumpster, a place where society dumps those it has already condemned to failure, then deludes itself into believing the problem is solved.
But does anyone really believe that crime is an isolated act? Can we truly reduce guilt to a single individual, as if they were born in a vacuum, without history, without environment, without conditioning? As if their crime were a bolt from the blue, an inexplicable anomaly to be eradicated? The truth is that prison was never meant to solve crime—it exists to obscure its causes. It serves only to reassure the consciences of those who refuse to acknowledge the systemic failure that produces it. It is the easiest, most cowardly way to say: The evil is outside of us; lock it up and forget it.
Yet no one is born a criminal. Crime is the consequence of a long chain of events, often set in motion long before the offense is committed. Why should a child born in a neglected neighborhood, raised in a violent environment, without access to education, without any future prospects, develop the same moral awareness as the child of a billionaire, raised in privilege and security? Why should the first respect rules that have only ever been instruments of oppression for him, while the second knows that those same rules will always protect him? Society creates an uneven playing field and then demands that everyone play by the same rules.
And so, while the children of billionaires can break the law knowing that someone will always be there to save them, to clean up their image, to find them a lawyer who can make their problems disappear with a handshake, those born in the wrong place, in the wrong family, in the wrong neighborhood, are doomed from the start. And when they make a mistake—because at some point, they will, because they have no alternatives, because they know nothing else, because they were never given a chance—the system punishes them with fury, as if they alone were the problem. As if their crime were not the direct result of centuries of inequality, exploitation, and social injustice. As if the true monster were them, and not the society that produced them and then discarded them in the nearest courtroom.
But the most disgusting thing is that prison does not merely punish. Prison is revenge—revenge institutionalized, revenge disguised as justice. It does not just deprive people of their freedom; it humiliates, annihilates, destroys. Human beings are crammed into overcrowded cells, treated like toxic waste, stripped of their humanity until they become exactly what society expects them to be. The prison system is designed to degrade, to break, to make any form of redemption impossible. Because a person who comes out of prison after years of confinement does not emerge rehabilitated; they emerge angrier, more alienated, more embittered. And so the cycle repeats itself.
And for what? Because we cling to the belief that one person's suffering can compensate for another's? Prison does not bring victims back to life, does not erase pain, does not repair anything. It is merely the way society convinces itself that it has "settled the score" without ever addressing the deeper causes of crime. Because confronting the real problem would mean acknowledging that the system itself is rotten to the core—and that is too terrifying. It is easier to settle for punishment, to believe that evil exists only in others, to pretend that justice is a cage rather than a transformation.
But crime is not eliminated through prison; it is eliminated through education, by reducing inequalities, by creating a society in which no one is forced to commit crimes to survive. Prison is only a symptom, the final stage of an infection that society refuses to cure. As long as we invest more money in prisons than in schools, more in repression than in prevention, crime will never disappear. Because prison is not the solution. Prison is part of the problem.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I agree that it isn't a good system. Do you think crime can always be prevented to begin with? I agree that social inequalities do pretty much condemn some people to very likely comit crime to survive. So, easing them would surely have a positive impact.

Not all crimes are about survival though. Rape, child molesting, sexually motivated murders, domestic violence aren't carried out because the person is fighting to survive. It's because they aren't resisting desires they have which they know are harmful to others.

Does society play a role in creating peadophiles, rapists, murderers and partners who beat the shit out of, or coercively control their spouses? Possibly. I'd say media sexualising children isn't a good thing. Porn that degrades certain groups of people may feed all that. A lot is probably picked up in our upbringing.

I think lots of crimes probably could be prevented with more equality, more inclusion, more education. Surely it's about responsibility too though. Surely an awful lot of people do have criminal intent sometimes- it's not just a case of survival as to which of them act on it. Why do some people resist and others indulge in behaviour that hurts others?

How do you 'cure' peadophilia say? (If they are likely to act on it by engaging in illegal pornography or actually physically hurting a child.) Do peadophilles even want to be 'cured'? Do potential rapists? I imagine, for those two groups of people, that is probably the most exciting aspect of their lives. I think crime and especially very serious crime is more complicated than just mere survival and hardship.

Where I certainly agree is things like terrorist acts and other crime. It's easy to hate these people and feel appalled by their actions. It's far more important to figure out why they went that route though. Were they isolated and angry? Why were they so angry? As societies, it's very important to consider these things because doubtless, there were ways they could have been prevented much earlier on going that route.

 

[L'absent]

Crime does not arise in a vacuum, and even if not all crimes stem from survival, they are all rooted in the society that produces them. The distinction between economic crimes and violent crimes is misleading because both result from a complex web of social, psychological, and cultural factors. And if society has the power to create conditions that foster certain crimes, it also has the duty to prevent them. The problem is that today, it does not. The prison system is a punitive mechanism that always comes after the fact, when the damage is already done, as if one person's suffering could compensate for another's. It does not heal, rehabilitate, or transform: it isolates, degrades, and returns individuals to society even more alienated. If the real goal were to reduce crime, we would invest resources in prevention, education, psychological and social support, not in cells and bars. You say that rape, murder, and domestic violence are not committed for survival but because someone gives in to their impulses. But impulses do not arise spontaneously: they are shaped by education, environment, and cultural narratives that normalize power and violence. A man who grows up in a society that trivializes consent and commodifies the body will learn to see certain forms of violence as natural or inevitable. If someone develops dangerous impulses, the right question is not "do they want to be cured?" but "have we created the tools for them to be helped before they harm someone?" Prison intervenes when it is too late, and that is no accident: it is easier to pretend that evil is an exception rather than accept that it is a product of the system. The high recidivism rate proves that prison prevents nothing: those who leave often have no choice but to return to crime. You say that some people resist their impulses while others do not. But why? Because some had access to an education that provided them with tools for self-control, empathy, and emotional regulation, while others grew up in environments that normalized violence. The issue is not "why does one resist and another not?" but "how can we build a society where resisting destructive impulses is the norm?" And the answer is simple: education, access to mental health care, dismantling the culture of violence, preventive psychological support for those with dangerous tendencies, sex education based on respect and consent, and social interventions to identify and rehabilitate people at risk before they commit a crime. Today, the system waits for a man to kill his wife before sentencing him instead of asking why so many men believe they have the right to control and abuse their partners. It waits for a teenager raised in marginalization to steal or sell drugs before locking them up, instead of offering them an alternative before it gets to that point. If we truly want to eliminate crime, we must stop seeing it as an individual deviation and recognize it as a symptom of a larger problem. And if prison is the only response we have today, it is not because it works, but because it is convenient. It allows us to pretend the problem has been solved when, in reality, we have done nothing to prevent it from happening again. But as long as we keep discarding people like waste without addressing what led them there, we are not delivering justice; we are merely perpetuating the same violence we claim to fight.

 

[intintint]

Just wanted to add that Victor Hugo said: "But secondly you say 'society must exact vengeance, and society must punish'. Wrong on both counts. Vengeance comes from the individual and punishment from God." :D

 

[quietism]

Totally agree with this sentiment.
Two of my favourite books that go into detail on the harms and alternatives to retributive justice as the default option, both in and out of the courtroom:

Sapolsky, Robert M. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York, New York: Penguin Press, 2017.
Schulman, Sarah. Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2016.

Not all crimes are about survival though. Rape, child molesting, sexually motivated murders, domestic violence aren't carried out because the person is fighting to survive. It's because they aren't resisting desires they have which they know are harmful to others.

I've done a bit of research into this and a research presentation in the past, the difference between malum in se crimes and malum prohibitum crimes. Malum in se crimes are illegal because they are immoral, i.e. murder, rape. Malum prohibitum crimes are instead immoral because they are illegal, under the assumption that the banned acts may lead to immoral acts if they are allowed - in other words a preventative measure comparable to precrime. The canonical example being speeding tickets or parking tickets.

This is a bit of a comparison I drew up:

The names have changed, over literal centuries, the first landmark of the distinction arguably being William Blackstone's Commentaries from 1765-1769. It truly feels like the wheel being reinvented for me. An excellent paper that introduced me to this concept:

Gray, Richard L. "Eliminating the (absurd) distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum crimes." Wash. ULQ 73 (1995): 1369.

In my opinion one of the most understudied areas of jurisprudence is envisioning how to remove the distinction in practice. Criminal intent is such a vague and neurologically nonsensical concept but it holds the foundation for almost all criminal law in the world, in part because of how easy it is to manipulate economically. A few examples of US case law:

• Is driving while intoxicated inherently immoral?
  • Yes (Bronson v. Swinney 1986, Landry v. Hoepfner 1987, United States v. Woods 1978)
  • It depends (Parham v. Municipal Court of Sioux Falls 1972)
  • No (Hall v. Hall 1991, State v. Parker 1983, United States v. Jenkins 1986)

• Is causing pollution inherently immoral?
  • No (from 1970) - United States v. Interlake Steel Corp, United States v. United States Steel Corp, United States v. American Cyanamid
• Is rape inherently immoral?
  • No (People v. Hernandez, 1964)

This is a topic I kinda wish I could publish about. I have so much to say about it and so many unsubmitted drafts to publish... There is so much uncharted territory both legally and intellectually speaking. Sigh... depression... I wish I could do this kind of research with someone else.

 

[L'absent]

Just wanted to add that Victor Hugo said: "But secondly you say 'society must exact vengeance, and society must punish'. Wrong on both counts. Vengeance comes from the individual and punishment from God." :D

Ah, Victor Hugo, always a safe bet. Too bad society never actually read his books—except to turn them into tearjerking musicals. If punishment belongs to God, then the state has enthusiastically appointed itself divine with the zeal of the worst religious fanatic. And quite a vengeful God at that, because not only does it punish, but it does so with the efficiency of a sadistic bureaucrat: paperwork, endless trials, psychiatric evaluations that no one reads, sentences that seem drawn from a cosmic lottery.
And if revenge is an individual matter, then maybe we should tell victims' families that if they truly want justice, they'd better do the dirty work themselves instead of waiting for the state to handle it with the grace of a sleep-deprived DMV clerk. Might as well bring back medieval blood feuds—at least they were more honest.
But the real problem is that society has always loved playing God, especially when it comes to deciding who should suffer and who shouldn't. Prisons are its custom-made hells, designed with the love of a craftsman to cause irreversible damage—just so it can pat itself on the back and say that evil has been eradicated. Kind of like curing a headache with a guillotine.
And God? Oh, He's probably been on vacation for centuries while human justice keeps proving that revenge is an addiction too strong to quit—especially when it's stamped with the official seal of a courtroom.

Totally agree with this sentiment.
Two of my favourite books that go into detail on the harms and alternatives to retributive justice as the default option, both in and out of the courtroom:

Sapolsky, Robert M. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. New York, New York: Penguin Press, 2017.
Schulman, Sarah. Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2016.


I've done a bit of research into this and a research presentation in the past, the difference between malum in se crimes and malum prohibitum crimes. Malum in se crimes are illegal because they are immoral, i.e. murder, rape. Malum prohibitum crimes are instead immoral because they are illegal, under the assumption that the banned acts may lead to immoral acts if they are allowed - in other words a preventative measure comparable to precrime. The canonical example being speeding tickets or parking tickets.

This is a bit of a comparison I drew up:
View attachment 159518
The names have changed, over literal centuries, the first landmark of the distinction arguably being William Blackstone's Commentaries from 1765-1769. It truly feels like the wheel being reinvented for me. An excellent paper that introduced me to this concept:

Gray, Richard L. "Eliminating the (absurd) distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum crimes." Wash. ULQ 73 (1995): 1369.

In my opinion one of the most understudied areas of jurisprudence is envisioning how to remove the distinction in practice. Criminal intent is such a vague and neurologically nonsensical concept but it holds the foundation for almost all criminal law in the world, in part because of how easy it is to manipulate economically. A few examples of US case law:

• Is driving while intoxicated inherently immoral?
  • Yes (Bronson v. Swinney 1986, Landry v. Hoepfner 1987, United States v. Woods 1978)
  • It depends (Parham v. Municipal Court of Sioux Falls 1972)
  • No (Hall v. Hall 1991, State v. Parker 1983, United States v. Jenkins 1986)
• Is causing pollution inherently immoral?
  • No (from 1970) - United States v. Interlake Steel Corp, United States v. United States Steel Corp, United States v. American Cyanamid
• Is rape inherently immoral?
  • No (People v. Hernandez, 1964)

This is a topic I kinda wish I could publish about. I have so much to say about it and so many unsubmitted drafts to publish... There is so much uncharted territory both legally and intellectually speaking. Sigh... depression... I wish I could do this kind of research with someone else.

Ah, Giovanni, you've opened a legal Pandora's box that shows just how amusing (and horrifying) the law's attempt to define morality can be, with all the precision of a drunk sniper. The question, "Is drunk driving inherently immoral?" is already a masterpiece. Because clearly, the real crime isn't endangering human lives but failing to buy enough beer to drink at home.
And rape? Apparently, according to certain legal cases, even that isn't always inherently immoral. At this point, we might as well admit that criminal law is nothing more than a giant role-playing game, with judges and lawyers deciding, case by case, what counts as morally acceptable. All of this, of course, with a keen eye on the wallet—because, let's face it, if you can afford the best lawyer, morality becomes optional.
The law, then, seems like a piece of conceptual art: it proclaims grand universal principles but contradicts itself with the enthusiasm of an improv comedian. And the best part is, we're all forced to perform in this tragicomedy. In the end, the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum is just a way to convince us that there's a higher moral order, when in reality, it's all arbitrary, dressed up as justice.
You say you want to publish something on this topic. I encourage you to do it: the world needs more people who can expose the absurdity of the system with the rigor of a scholar and the sarcasm of a comedian. And if you ever need a hand to make it even more caustic, count on me. After all, morality is just a running joke in the circus of law.