I think humankind will eventually need to reconsider incarceration at all, just like we're now questioning the need for confinement for the mentally ill. To what extent is punishment preferable in...
I think humankind will eventually need to reconsider incarceration at all, just like we're now questioning the need for confinement for the mentally ill. To what extent is punishment preferable in comparison to other forms of social readjustment? Is it really an effective way to reduce crime, and is it in consonance with human rights principles? Would we incarcerate people in a truly rehabilitation focused framework? Is incarceration worth its price, both from an objective (economical) and subjective (social, political, psychological) standpoint?
It seems to me that incarceration may never go away, just like some mental illnesses actually require temporary confinement. But it probably should be reduced to the point of becoming an exception rather than the norm.
I could see a very small percentage of criminals being beyond help. But for everyone else the real solution is to make it undesirable to commit crimes. Eliminate poverty, provide everyone with...
I could see a very small percentage of criminals being beyond help. But for everyone else the real solution is to make it undesirable to commit crimes. Eliminate poverty, provide everyone with mental health care, and treat crime as a symptom of situational problems. I suppose you'd also need to legalize "crimes" that aren't the result of a bad life. Plenty of responsible and happy adults smoke marijuana for example - but in some places you could land in prison for it.
I think exile seems like a decent alternative. It would be both cheaper and more humane, while still protecting society from particularly dangerous individuals. But to where? edit: (ok maybe this...
I think exile seems like a decent alternative. It would be both cheaper and more humane, while still protecting society from particularly dangerous individuals. But to where?
Uh, given that the intersection between "habitable" and "has no humans" is prettttyyy thin by now, you'd either be plonking a dangerous criminal near some poor locals or putting him in Antarctica,...
Uh, given that the intersection between "habitable" and "has no humans" is prettttyyy thin by now, you'd either be plonking a dangerous criminal near some poor locals or putting him in Antarctica, which is really just an extra cruel way to execute someone.
Basically all land is owned by a nation state now. I don't think any of them approve of you dumping criminals there.
And honestly I'm pretty sure putting someone with no survival skills in a wilderness counts as cruel or unusual, which is barred by the constitution.
The US government owns over 200 million acres. I'm sure at least some of it is habitable. And if not, I would think we have the resources to buy an adequate amount (assuming we're limiting exile...
Uh, given that the intersection between "habitable" and "has no humans" is prettttyyy thin by now
The US government owns over 200 million acres. I'm sure at least some of it is habitable. And if not, I would think we have the resources to buy an adequate amount (assuming we're limiting exile to those who truly can't be rehabilitated).
And honestly I'm pretty sure putting someone with no survival skills in a wilderness counts as cruel or unusual, which is barred by the constitution.
Survival isn't really all that difficult with the right gear in a forgiving climate. And even if that was true, I would assume it would be even more so of traditional imprisonment?
I mean the thing about, say, the Midwest is that even in "barren" places there are still occasionally people there. And people are also allowed to go anywhere in the US wilder lands for the most...
I mean the thing about, say, the Midwest is that even in "barren" places there are still occasionally people there. And people are also allowed to go anywhere in the US wilder lands for the most part.
You don't want some hikers accidentally meeting your convicted murderers or whatever.
You'd have to like fence off a vast land. Not only is kinda sucks for everyone else, I'm pretty sure you're basically recreating the plot of the hunger games step by step at this point.
Also, I think you're VASTLY underestimating the difficulty in surviving on your own. Like, by an insane amount.
I'd rather be in jail than slowly starve to death while constantly worrying about wildlife. And it's not very close either.
I mean we'd supply them with food and water. You could live fairly "luxuriously" by camping standards for less than $5000 a year, which is way less than what it costs to house someone in a prison.
Also, I think you're VASTLY underestimating the difficulty in surviving on your own. Like, by an insane amount.
I mean we'd supply them with food and water. You could live fairly "luxuriously" by camping standards for less than $5000 a year, which is way less than what it costs to house someone in a prison.
Survival implied foraging for your own food and water which is not very easy. In a free for all situation the spots where water is distributed would be Hotspots for violence. Look in all honesty...
Survival implied foraging for your own food and water which is not very easy. In a free for all situation the spots where water is distributed would be Hotspots for violence.
Look in all honesty I'd probably prefer being evicted into nature instead of locked in a cell but you have to understand that you cannot calculate with everyone returning at that point and accept that some people are going to die.
You know what, I'd do time in McMurdo as some kind of weird banishment sentence. As much as I'm sure I'd grow to hate it, it would beat never seeing the outside of a cell for 10 years.
You know what, I'd do time in McMurdo as some kind of weird banishment sentence. As much as I'm sure I'd grow to hate it, it would beat never seeing the outside of a cell for 10 years.
As others have already touched on, exile can be incredibly cruel and problematic, and it's essentially just washing responsibility off our hands. As an alternative to that and the American...
As others have already touched on, exile can be incredibly cruel and problematic, and it's essentially just washing responsibility off our hands. As an alternative to that and the American "punitive justice" style system, IMO Norway's "restorative justice" system and incarceration model is the ideal we should all strive for. They provide humane housing for inmates in a secure (but not overbearingly so) environment, and focus almost exclusively on rehabilitation and teaching new life skills to prisoners, which has the effect of dramatically reducing recidivism. See: Why Norway's prison system is so successful
I was mostly talking about "particularly dangerous individuals" who can't be rehabilitated. Although I disagree that exile can't be rehabilitative (when I say "exile" I'm thinking dropping someone...
I was mostly talking about "particularly dangerous individuals" who can't be rehabilitated. Although I disagree that exile can't be rehabilitative (when I say "exile" I'm thinking dropping someone off in the middle of some secluded natural area, probably with some camping/survival gear, maybe a heart rate monitor/GPS tracker, not just kicking them into a bordering country). I think a few months or years in nature could do a lot of good for non violent offenders. Their crimes are often crimes of despair or desperation, and such a punishment could help alleviate some of that.
What makes you think that contact with nature can transform criminals into morally virtuous individuals? What makes you think contact with nature is a cure for “despair or desperation”?
I think a few months or years in nature could do a lot of good for non violent offenders
What makes you think that contact with nature can transform criminals into morally virtuous individuals?
What makes you think contact with nature is a cure for “despair or desperation”?
Maybe not a cure, but at least anecdotally, extended periods of time in nature is very therapeutic. I think it would help. Anyways, I'm not even talking about exiling such people so it's not...
Maybe not a cure, but at least anecdotally, extended periods of time in nature is very therapeutic. I think it would help. Anyways, I'm not even talking about exiling such people so it's not really relevant.
Nature can be therapeutic when you still have access to civilization. Living totally apart from civilization can be extremely stressful. You may not find enough prey for your protein needs, you...
Nature can be therapeutic when you still have access to civilization. Living totally apart from civilization can be extremely stressful. You may not find enough prey for your protein needs, you may eat a poisonous plant, a large predator can eat you, a venomous snake can bite you, and things like mild pneumonia, wound infection, and a broken leg can literally kill you. Imagine having all these risks in the back of your mind 24/7.
I liked this way of putting it: 2011 doesn't seem that long ago, but thinking about the tech that's evolved since then, it seems much longer ago. Also, it would make an interesting short story to...
I liked this way of putting it:
So many things have changed since I’ve exited this proverbial time machine.
2011 doesn't seem that long ago, but thinking about the tech that's evolved since then, it seems much longer ago.
Also, it would make an interesting short story to write about a person who goes into the future with the first time machine and doesn't understand it at all. I don't think I've ever read that sort of plot before.
The Forever War and The Door Into Summer touches on this theme, but I’m certain it was better and further explored elsewhere. @Algernon_Asimov is a good person to answer that.
it would make an interesting short story to write about a person who goes into the future with the first time machine and doesn't understand it at all
The Forever War and The Door Into Summer touches on this theme, but I’m certain it was better and further explored elsewhere.
I'm actually surprised that @joplin says they haven't read a plot about a person who goes into the future and doesn't understand it at all. It's a very common plot. Maybe they've watched something...
I'm actually surprised that @joplin says they haven't read a plot about a person who goes into the future and doesn't understand it at all. It's a very common plot. Maybe they've watched something with this plot, rather than read it? This trope is so common that I bet @joplinhas read/watched this plot before, but it's just not registering with them right now because they're so familiar with the book/film that it's not standing out as ASTOUNDING to them any more.
The most famous science-fiction time-travel story ever written features this plot. A man builds a time machine and uses it to travel to the future. He finds a future with two species: an idle human species above ground, and a hard-working troglodyte species below ground. He doesn't understand it - until he finds some history books which explain how the future came to be. Welcome to The Time Machine by H.G. Wells!
Before that, there was Washington Irving's tale of Rip Van Winkle who slept for 20 years and woke up to find things changed - like the fact that the British colonies in North America weren't British any more.
In the late 1800s, there were a couple of stories written about people who transported to the year 2000, where they found a technological utopia. I know that these stories exist because of essays I've read about the history of science fiction, but I've never read them, and I had to look up the titles: Looking Backward and Golf in the Year 2000.
Buck Rogers was a 20th century man transported to the 24th century. (And there's his identical twin, Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century.)
Isaac Asimov wrote A Pebble In the Sky about a 20th century man who gets transported into a future Galactic Empire and finds himself in a culture he's not prepared for.
The Planet of the Apes movie had a man travelling to Earth's future and having to figure things out (remember that famous scene at the end of the movie?).
I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones I can easily remember.
I have never read "The Time Machine". I probably saw the movie from the 60s(? 70s?) but was really young. I'm familiar with the basic concept of Rip van Winkle but never read it. I may give it a...
I have never read "The Time Machine". I probably saw the movie from the 60s(? 70s?) but was really young. I'm familiar with the basic concept of Rip van Winkle but never read it. I may give it a read now that you mention it.
The Buck Rogers I watched as a kid was the terrible 1970s TV version. He was occasionally befuddled by slight changes to culture or gadgets he wasn't familiar with, but people and culture were fundamentally the same as the late 70s US. Have not read any of the others.
You are right about (the original) Planet of the Apes, though. I have seen that, and it does fit the bill nicely. And that's more what I meant in my comment. More like humans or their culture either no longer exist, or are so different as to be unrecognizable to someone from the present (or past). Good call! Thanks for the other suggestions.
Happy to help! Yeah, I figured that, with this common plot, it wasn't that you hadn't read or seen it, it was that you didn't notice or remember the plot being used. By the way, there are lots of...
Happy to help!
Yeah, I figured that, with this common plot, it wasn't that you hadn't read or seen it, it was that you didn't notice or remember the plot being used.
By the way, there are lots of other uses of this plot. You could check this list for some examples.
I have to add to this. Do not read 'Looking Backward: 2000–1887'. Avoid it at all costs. I recently bought an omnibus volume which includes this novel among other works. Having mentioned it to you...
In the late 1800s, there were a couple of stories written about people who transported to the year 2000, where they found a technological utopia. I know that these stories exist because of essays I've read about the history of science fiction, but I've never read them, and I had to look up the titles: Looking Backward and Golf in the Year 2000.
I recently bought an omnibus volume which includes this novel among other works. Having mentioned it to you just a few weeks ago, I decided to read this novel first.
It's awful.
It is basically just a description of a utopian socialist world. The protagonist sleeps for 113 years, wakes up in the year 2000... and then has a series of conversations with his host about how their socialist utopia works. That's it. The protagonist goes out on a 2-hour walk to see the future city of Boston, but we get no description of the future city - just a description of the protagonist's state of mind. A shopping trip with a lady of the future is nothing more than an excuse to demonstrate how people purchase things in this socialist utopia. And so on.
The writer hasn't imagined any novel technologies. Every technology the protagonist encounters is merely a clever use of existing technologies of 1887 - such as using the telephone to pipe in music played at a concert hall.
The book is just a treatise on how a socialist society would work. If you're looking for science fiction or adventure, this book isn't it.
Wow, that's definitely a problem to consider. Technology has always been a fast-paced, and it's hard enough sometimes staying current on the outside. Near the end of the article, I couldn't help...
Wow, that's definitely a problem to consider. Technology has always been a fast-paced, and it's hard enough sometimes staying current on the outside.
Near the end of the article, I couldn't help thinking, We didn't start the fire...
I think humankind will eventually need to reconsider incarceration at all, just like we're now questioning the need for confinement for the mentally ill. To what extent is punishment preferable in comparison to other forms of social readjustment? Is it really an effective way to reduce crime, and is it in consonance with human rights principles? Would we incarcerate people in a truly rehabilitation focused framework? Is incarceration worth its price, both from an objective (economical) and subjective (social, political, psychological) standpoint?
It seems to me that incarceration may never go away, just like some mental illnesses actually require temporary confinement. But it probably should be reduced to the point of becoming an exception rather than the norm.
The best book on getting rid of incarceration is supposed to be Angela Davis's Are Prisons Obsolete?.
Great thanks!
I could see a very small percentage of criminals being beyond help. But for everyone else the real solution is to make it undesirable to commit crimes. Eliminate poverty, provide everyone with mental health care, and treat crime as a symptom of situational problems. I suppose you'd also need to legalize "crimes" that aren't the result of a bad life. Plenty of responsible and happy adults smoke marijuana for example - but in some places you could land in prison for it.
Precisely.
I think exile seems like a decent alternative. It would be both cheaper and more humane, while still protecting society from particularly dangerous individuals. But to where?
edit: (ok maybe this was a dumb idea.)
Uh, given that the intersection between "habitable" and "has no humans" is prettttyyy thin by now, you'd either be plonking a dangerous criminal near some poor locals or putting him in Antarctica, which is really just an extra cruel way to execute someone.
Basically all land is owned by a nation state now. I don't think any of them approve of you dumping criminals there.
And honestly I'm pretty sure putting someone with no survival skills in a wilderness counts as cruel or unusual, which is barred by the constitution.
The US government owns over 200 million acres. I'm sure at least some of it is habitable. And if not, I would think we have the resources to buy an adequate amount (assuming we're limiting exile to those who truly can't be rehabilitated).
Survival isn't really all that difficult with the right gear in a forgiving climate. And even if that was true, I would assume it would be even more so of traditional imprisonment?
I mean the thing about, say, the Midwest is that even in "barren" places there are still occasionally people there. And people are also allowed to go anywhere in the US wilder lands for the most part.
You don't want some hikers accidentally meeting your convicted murderers or whatever.
You'd have to like fence off a vast land. Not only is kinda sucks for everyone else, I'm pretty sure you're basically recreating the plot of the hunger games step by step at this point.
Also, I think you're VASTLY underestimating the difficulty in surviving on your own. Like, by an insane amount.
I'd rather be in jail than slowly starve to death while constantly worrying about wildlife. And it's not very close either.
I mean we'd supply them with food and water. You could live fairly "luxuriously" by camping standards for less than $5000 a year, which is way less than what it costs to house someone in a prison.
Survival implied foraging for your own food and water which is not very easy. In a free for all situation the spots where water is distributed would be Hotspots for violence.
Look in all honesty I'd probably prefer being evicted into nature instead of locked in a cell but you have to understand that you cannot calculate with everyone returning at that point and accept that some people are going to die.
You know what, I'd do time in McMurdo as some kind of weird banishment sentence. As much as I'm sure I'd grow to hate it, it would beat never seeing the outside of a cell for 10 years.
As others have already touched on, exile can be incredibly cruel and problematic, and it's essentially just washing responsibility off our hands. As an alternative to that and the American "punitive justice" style system, IMO Norway's "restorative justice" system and incarceration model is the ideal we should all strive for. They provide humane housing for inmates in a secure (but not overbearingly so) environment, and focus almost exclusively on rehabilitation and teaching new life skills to prisoners, which has the effect of dramatically reducing recidivism. See: Why Norway's prison system is so successful
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IepJqxRCZY
Exile is a punitive action with no rehabilitation component. You'd be exporting a maladjusted individual that might become a problem elsewhere.
I was mostly talking about "particularly dangerous individuals" who can't be rehabilitated. Although I disagree that exile can't be rehabilitative (when I say "exile" I'm thinking dropping someone off in the middle of some secluded natural area, probably with some camping/survival gear, maybe a heart rate monitor/GPS tracker, not just kicking them into a bordering country). I think a few months or years in nature could do a lot of good for non violent offenders. Their crimes are often crimes of despair or desperation, and such a punishment could help alleviate some of that.
What makes you think that contact with nature can transform criminals into morally virtuous individuals?
What makes you think contact with nature is a cure for “despair or desperation”?
Maybe not a cure, but at least anecdotally, extended periods of time in nature is very therapeutic. I think it would help. Anyways, I'm not even talking about exiling such people so it's not really relevant.
Nature can be therapeutic when you still have access to civilization. Living totally apart from civilization can be extremely stressful. You may not find enough prey for your protein needs, you may eat a poisonous plant, a large predator can eat you, a venomous snake can bite you, and things like mild pneumonia, wound infection, and a broken leg can literally kill you. Imagine having all these risks in the back of your mind 24/7.
This is not very therapeutic for me.
I liked this way of putting it:
2011 doesn't seem that long ago, but thinking about the tech that's evolved since then, it seems much longer ago.
Also, it would make an interesting short story to write about a person who goes into the future with the first time machine and doesn't understand it at all. I don't think I've ever read that sort of plot before.
The Forever War and The Door Into Summer touches on this theme, but I’m certain it was better and further explored elsewhere.
@Algernon_Asimov is a good person to answer that.
I'm actually surprised that @joplin says they haven't read a plot about a person who goes into the future and doesn't understand it at all. It's a very common plot. Maybe they've watched something with this plot, rather than read it? This trope is so common that I bet @joplin has read/watched this plot before, but it's just not registering with them right now because they're so familiar with the book/film that it's not standing out as ASTOUNDING to them any more.
The most famous science-fiction time-travel story ever written features this plot. A man builds a time machine and uses it to travel to the future. He finds a future with two species: an idle human species above ground, and a hard-working troglodyte species below ground. He doesn't understand it - until he finds some history books which explain how the future came to be. Welcome to The Time Machine by H.G. Wells!
Before that, there was Washington Irving's tale of Rip Van Winkle who slept for 20 years and woke up to find things changed - like the fact that the British colonies in North America weren't British any more.
In the late 1800s, there were a couple of stories written about people who transported to the year 2000, where they found a technological utopia. I know that these stories exist because of essays I've read about the history of science fiction, but I've never read them, and I had to look up the titles: Looking Backward and Golf in the Year 2000.
Buck Rogers was a 20th century man transported to the 24th century. (And there's his identical twin, Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century.)
Isaac Asimov wrote A Pebble In the Sky about a 20th century man who gets transported into a future Galactic Empire and finds himself in a culture he's not prepared for.
The Planet of the Apes movie had a man travelling to Earth's future and having to figure things out (remember that famous scene at the end of the movie?).
I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones I can easily remember.
This trope has been used a few times.
I have never read "The Time Machine". I probably saw the movie from the 60s(? 70s?) but was really young. I'm familiar with the basic concept of Rip van Winkle but never read it. I may give it a read now that you mention it.
The Buck Rogers I watched as a kid was the terrible 1970s TV version. He was occasionally befuddled by slight changes to culture or gadgets he wasn't familiar with, but people and culture were fundamentally the same as the late 70s US. Have not read any of the others.
You are right about (the original) Planet of the Apes, though. I have seen that, and it does fit the bill nicely. And that's more what I meant in my comment. More like humans or their culture either no longer exist, or are so different as to be unrecognizable to someone from the present (or past). Good call! Thanks for the other suggestions.
Happy to help!
Yeah, I figured that, with this common plot, it wasn't that you hadn't read or seen it, it was that you didn't notice or remember the plot being used.
By the way, there are lots of other uses of this plot. You could check this list for some examples.
@joplin, see also: TV Tropes - Fish out of Temporal Water
(which even has a "Literature" section in the Examples at the bottom)
Haha! Excellent list! I have some reading to do! Thank you!
I have to add to this. Do not read 'Looking Backward: 2000–1887'. Avoid it at all costs.
I recently bought an omnibus volume which includes this novel among other works. Having mentioned it to you just a few weeks ago, I decided to read this novel first.
It's awful.
It is basically just a description of a utopian socialist world. The protagonist sleeps for 113 years, wakes up in the year 2000... and then has a series of conversations with his host about how their socialist utopia works. That's it. The protagonist goes out on a 2-hour walk to see the future city of Boston, but we get no description of the future city - just a description of the protagonist's state of mind. A shopping trip with a lady of the future is nothing more than an excuse to demonstrate how people purchase things in this socialist utopia. And so on.
The writer hasn't imagined any novel technologies. Every technology the protagonist encounters is merely a clever use of existing technologies of 1887 - such as using the telephone to pipe in music played at a concert hall.
The book is just a treatise on how a socialist society would work. If you're looking for science fiction or adventure, this book isn't it.
I'll give them a look. Thanks!
Wow, that's definitely a problem to consider. Technology has always been a fast-paced, and it's hard enough sometimes staying current on the outside.
Near the end of the article, I couldn't help thinking,
We didn't start the fire...