Non che quello fosse il mio argomento piglia-tutto, ma il primo impulso è stata stampare questa pagina e portarla a tutti quelli con cui ho discusso in questi anni.
poveri i bambini che finiscono nella squadra avversaria
poveri i bambini che finiscono nella squadra avversaria
Non che quello fosse il mio argomento piglia-tutto, ma il primo impulso è stata stampare questa pagina e portarla a tutti quelli con cui ho discusso in questi anni.
Grazie per aver segnalato questo articolo. Sull’indulto la penso così anch’io.
niente, non riesco a seguire la logica.
Che vuol dire “l’indulto funziona”? che poco carcere è meglio di tanto, riuscendo ad evitare l’effetto -è.entrato.dentro.mo.è.peggio.di.prima-?
so, what was your argument?
Max ha scritto:
Che in uno stato di diritto una sentenza di colpevolezza, implica una pena specifica. X anni, X interdizione dai pubblici uffici, X misure cautelari, e determinate condizioni.
Quando l’umanità – sancita dallo stato di diritto – di questa pena non può essere garantita, uno Stato civile non può MAI ricorrere a una condizione peggiore. Si deve sempre approssimare per difetto.
È lo stesso motivo per cui una persona deve essere rilasciata se non si è convinti al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio che abbia commesso quel crimine (neanche se se ne hanno le prove al 90%).
Se io so che per un furto di una mela farò tre anni di carcere, non puoi farmene fare 5 (ma puoi farmene fare 2). Se so che per un furto ho un carcere decoroso (così dice la costituzione), o lo fai fare decoroso, oppure non lo fai fare.
not sure I buy that.
When I read in newspapers about anything falling under my direct expertise I systematically find egregious bullshits. I am having the same feeling reading this article even if I am no expert. It is not clear to me what is measured, and what is compared to what and whether the author or the social scientist is jumping to conclusions or not. One has to be careful not to compare apples to oranges. First lesson for a scientist is that when something seems to be too good to be true more often then not it is.
this seems to be too good. was it that past felons were too stupid/hard asses? or that new one are too smart/charitable? Are they comparing recidivism rates in the past three years among pardoned felons to a similar (big assumption!) past population but spanning a 7 years period? Of course the value will be lower.. 3 vs 7.what is relevant is the rate per year perhaps, and that won’t be constant either, over time it will grow and probably level off, that’s a given.
This kind of statistics may be tricky to interpret, have to be normalized in some meaningful way (different crimes, different times, different economic conditions, different felons). my opinion of italian academics is in general less than stellar, but still, to be gracious, I would wait for the study to be published in a peer reviewed journal before wasting ink in national newspapers headlines. Also a 50% recidivism rate for “career†felons does not seem trivial: we may all agree that the recidivism for those felons would have been 0% in the same time period if they were in jail completing their sentence! ….So what is working exactly?
It seems that one problem may be that you guys don’t have enough prisons for a country of 60 million people and have an infrastructure often built during the kingdom era when the population was half. Italy does not have enough of many things, so in a way this is not a shocker: but if one has the rights of the victims at heart as much as those of convicted felons (and why not? both have constitutional rights), then the right thing is to build more prisons. victims are respected, felons do their time in decent conditions and with a chance to rehabilitation, if relevant.
Otherwise is just a cheap patch to a complex problem that is bound to come up soon again. .
pardons are very much like the infamous “condoni edilizi”, another Italian specialty…not many reasons to be happy about them.
just my opinion and from a country where 0.7% of the population is in jail at any time….(that would make 400000 in Italy, which, if one includes all the Italians who don’t pay taxes, would be about right ;-)[more seriously, here the problems are others and I may be willing to discuss them elsewhere]
Max ha scritto:
Delle altre cose, se vuoi, ne parliamo. Ma qui dici una cosa bella grossa, che non può passare: i diritti delle vittime non sono – in nessun modo – rispettati dal fatto che un “facente reato” sia in prigione. In nessuno statuto civile al mondo (Civile, ovviamente in Iran e a Cuba c’è) esiste il concetto della punitività della pena.
Il motivo per cui esiste il carcare è: prevenzione, deterrenza (a posteriori), e riabilitazione.
Appurato questo, ma deve essere detto con una forza insindacabile, possiamo parlare delle costruzione di nuove carceri, come possiamo parlare dell’indeecnza con cui vengono puniti alcuni reati che non dovrebbero esistere, come quelli relativi alla droga o alla prostituzione. Ma la prima cosa che si deve garantire è che se in una cella possono stare 3 persone non ce ne siano 4. Garantito questo, e assieme a questo lo stato di diritto, parliamo delle altre misure.
Max ha scritto:
ho dato per scontato che avessero adottato una metodologia adeguata, in effetti si potrebbe aver dei dubbi, ma..
questo è impossibile dai, neanche tom&jerry
poi si, stesse perplessità sul resto dell’articolo..
invece l’argomento di Giovanni qui sopra, ammesso di trovarsi di fronte quelle condizioni, è proprio piglia-tutto
Giovanni Fontana ha scritto:
ma come parlare? devono essere costruite nuove carceri. prevenzione e deterrenza sono due funzioni fondamentali per il sistema, se non riescono ad essere espletate siamo al collasso.. dell’ordinamento sovrano dico, per la gloria degli ordinamenti viziosi
>In nessuno statuto civile al mondo (Civile, >ovviamente in Iran e a Cuba c’è) esiste il >concetto della punitività della pena.
>prevenzione, deterrenza (a posteriori), e >riabilitazione.
I beg to differ.punishment in its broad term is 100% part of the US legal system if not its philosophical reason of being (and we could discuss about the puritan religious philosophy behind this aspect). what’s your source for saying the opposite? you may argue whether this is good or bad, perhaps, but punitive detention is THE hall mark of the US judicial system (high propensity to incarceration and high severity of sentencing).
different crimes get different jail times as a reflection of different degree of punishment. the “three-strikes-and-you-are-out law is an example of pure punishment, there is no intent of prevention, deterrence, less so of rehabilitation they call it “capital punishment” for heaven’s sake, and the US constitution speaks of provisions against “cruel and unusual punishment”, victim’s parents have a right to a hearing before sentencing, just for that balancing between accused and victim I am referring to. victim’s rights play an important role in the sentencing trial. All the US judicial system is heavily unbalanced toward punishment. it’s in their language, in their court papers, it the prevalent philosophy. some State constitution goes as far as spelling victims rights.
I am no lawyer but it seems obvious to me that this is so.
now, is it right? that’s more complex to answer, but in general I feel more sympathy for a victim than for a criminal…and don’t start again with your mantra about me being a closeted fascist! 😉
@ Lorenzo Panichi:
impossible?…hope so. but how do you explain such a difference from the past? human nature being what it is…and mickey mouse research being more frequent than one would hope…
…I keep reading this sentence and thinking that the pardon law was passed in may 2006. 3 years ago. three years of data at most. and they compare it to a 7 years data collection span “pre-indulto”.
“Dei 45mila “indultati” lo studio ha differenziato due campionamenti diversi per status giuridico censendo, nel primo caso, tutti i “rientri” di quelli che venivano direttamente dal carcere: 27.607. Il tasso medio di recidiva è stato di circa il 27 per cento, di contro alla stima media pre-indulto, che secondo studi dello stesso Dap, in un monitoraggio condotto in 7 anni, è di circa il 68 per cento. Un calo, dunque, di oltre il 50 per cento.”
anyway, I don’t think this is a strong argument otherwise I may argue that it is more cost effective to depenalize crimes directly. that REALLY works at keeping prisons empty! surely it saves time and money (cops looking for criminals, lawyers and judges hung up in endless litigation, cost of running a jail). if we have to let them go every 3 years, it may be a better strategy. 😉
Giovanni Fontana ha scritto:
Non so se Max sia Americano, ma in California, facendo come da lui suggerito non hanno risolto nulla….carceri costruite per 3000 persone nelle quali vi abitano in 7000, zero assistenza sanitaria (praticamente)e tanti tanti problemi derivanti da leggi che purtroppo, più che salvaguardare le vittime, difendono gli interessi del governatore.
@ Max:
controllare la condizione dopo 3 anni di quelli che hanno finito di scontare la pena in una data dal ’99 al 06,no?
@ Valentina:
I’m not suggesting anything. three-strikes-and-you are out is a stupid law
@ Lorenzo Panichi:
this is the gracious interpretation I was referring to. let’s hope so…
@ Valentina:
The problem in the US is a strong bias toward heavily punishing sentences (for many reasons) plus the fact that the failed “war on drug” and especially mandatory minimum sentencing laws have filled jails with low level, low risk, first time offenders (at the cost of 50 K a year each!). the problem was not building too many prisons, it was overfilling them with the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
but you cannot use a wrong-headed US policy as an argument for excusing the situation in Italy.
the UK or Spain have an incarceration rate of ~140/100000. Germany has a rate of 98/100000 and an occupancy rate of 90%. now in Italy the incarceration rate is ~96/100000, in the ball park of other Europeans. now, one reason for the pardon was that they reportedly had 2:1 occupancy rates or more. assuming that was true everywhere in Italy and not just in a few prisons, the conclusion is that you likely need more prisons to keep up with your very moderate neighbors in Europe. no need to get up to US levels of incarceration (rate of 750/100000!)… talking about the wrongs of the US is a straw man argument. you just need some targeted infrastructure spending…that’s all. good for the economy as well.
(PS: dual citizen)
@ Giovanni Fontana:
>In nessuno statuto civile al mondo (Civile, >ovviamente in Iran e a Cuba c’è) esiste il >concetto della punitività della pena.
what I took issue with is your statement above. If you are making a statement of fact, it seemed counter-intuitive and false on its face to me. So, not being a lawyer, I checked with my colleagues here in campus at Harvard L.S. Here I give my personal summary as biomedical scientist, so my colleagues are off the hook for my misunderstanding…(The issues are obviously complex and well above my pay grade).
Not surprisingly, It turns out there is a whole host of philosophy of law dealing with punishment, namely the theory of criminal justice. a particular current of thought (retributivism) follows Kantian philosophy and supports the concept of “just desert”, the punishment per se as a retribution for an offense, proportional to the moral seriousness of the same. it’s extreme example is capital punishment, “an eye for an eye”. Other examples include minimum sentencing laws, three-strikes legislation and truth-in sentencing requirements. Utilitarians argue on the line of reasoning followed by Giovanni (punishment as a deterrent, mainly). Old Stewart Mills was a fan of the theory. Reform theorists argue that the minimum amount of punishment is what would allow rehabilitation of the offender (again, the other prong of Giovanni position). These came in vogue during the 60s and fell off during the 80s. all these philosophies are present in western systems to various extent, with the European system favoring more the reform theory.
so we may argue what is the best balance, what’s the right approach etc. but not whether or not punitive sentencing exist in modern and “civilized” (let’s say based on “rule of law” which is better) western judicial systems. it does.
what lacks in Cuba, China and Iran is a truly INDEPENDENT judiciary and legislative bodies: dictatorships and theocracies have that “little” defect! that’s the big difference and one key measure of comparison.
Max, rispondo velocissimamente perché ho internet poco e male: se ho capito dici – la punitività è una componente utile per la deterrenza e per la rieducazione. Difatti non dico che – in assoluto – non bisogni punire.
Non ho paura della punizione, io vedo tutto secondo un concetto d’utilità : se è utile.
@ Giovanni Fontana:
scusate se chioso senza aver seguito…
ovvero Utilitarismo?
😉
Alberto ha scritto:
In termini filosofici, grosso modo sì.
In termini discorsivi: garantire la felicità al maggior numero di persone possibile.
@ Giovanni Fontana:
no, I think “just desert” it’s more punishment because one deserves to be punished. because that’s the right thing to do. in my view is very akin to vendetta. whether it’s useful it’s secondary.
ie an antisocial sadist mass murderer won’t be deterred much from his impulses by the threat of jail, neither be re-educated. in his case jail is just punishment (jail, death) for its own sake.
do I approve of it? in some cases, probably, yes.
@ Max:
Beh, non è un approccio molto scientifico, sembra fideistico: perché merita?