How Many Prisoners in Jail is Enough?

Incarceration rates have been increasing in several western countries for the last few decades. Politicians in the UK are planning for another 5000 prison places (2008/9). Where will it end? What proportion of young males do we want to see in jail? There are other options.

While 'zero tolerance' may have reduced personal and property crime in the USA, it roughly doubled the prison population. Society becomes less secure, and nastier, as the cycle of offending and criminal justice goes on, while prisoner numbers continue to rise.

Approximately 1 out of 75 males of all ages in the USA are in jail (derived from DoJ) - and 1 out of 10 young males in some minority groups (mainly blacks). This proportion would be equivalent to 300,000 male prisoners in the UK - 4 times more than at present.

Should we simply jail all delinquents (the vast majority males) from the age of 17 to 35? This might equate to a prison population of 750,000 in the UK. Surely not - there are other options that are more efficient, and more humane and friendly.

Within a few years the vast majority of offenders are released (average jail sentences are much less than 2 years) - bringing with them bitterness at their treatment, and crime skills acquired in jail. Are we simply going to carry on locking up ever greater numbers of young men, and putting up with a more and more dysfunctional society?

There are better ways. In Iceland there were only 115 prisoners out of a population of 300,000 - or 1 out of 1,300 males in jail (OECD, 2006). At that sort level of crime it would be feasible to 'micro-manage' each offender with social workers (or community enforcer/motivators). Such a society would be a much nicer place to live than one where you have to lock up 1 out of 75 just to keep a lid on high rates of crime. Micro-management would be feasible in a service economy and, with less crime, would be cheaper than locking up so many.

It would be very cost-effective to address the motivations for crime, and lack of cohesive (efficacious) communities around the world, rather than massive expenditure on crime and 'criminal justice'. And, a lot could be done by correcting misapprehensions, lack of education, or opportunities, and gross inequalities.

Societies that succeed in reducing crime, rather than punishing ever more offenders, will be nicer ones to be part of (and much more humane).

More Likely to be Dead by Saturday

Realistically, you are much more likely to die before a lottery than you are to win it. In the UK about 10 people die each day in traffic accidents - many more than win lotteries. Then, there are heart attacks, cancers and so forth (which also kill many times more than traffic accidents). All the same, it is tempting to think about what you might do if you won.

But perhaps, rather than thinking about what you could do if you won and being disappointed again, you could do things that might actually make you happier in the long run. There are quite a few little, and some big, things that you could do to make you more satisfied with your life. Researchers have been looking into this for quite a long time. For example Michael Argyle in the 1960's and 70's, and more recently Ed Diener and Martin Seligman.


For example:

• EXERCISE (moderate exercise has millions of benefits, including mood and happiness);
• COUNTING YOUR BLESSINGS (in other words thinking about your own good fortune: if you are reading this, you were not run over by a car today. Savour everyday enjoyment);
• FAITH (irrespective of denomination, people with faith say they are more satisfied with their lives than those who say they do not have a faith)
• FIND SOMETHING TO OCCUPY YOU (that is something that you enjoy and find purposeful)
• TAKE PART IN GROUP, OR SOCIAL, ACTIVITY (we are social animals, and we appreciate the feedback and reinforcement that other people give us. Being acknowledged and greeted as part of a group is better than just watching TV)

A lot of these revolve around finding meaning in your life (for example: 'having other people acknowledge your greeting'; 'spiritual beliefs'; and 'things occupy you because they have meaning to you'). This is something you can find and cultivate, by taking small, cautious steps which add something to your life.

You can be happy without winning a lottery! (And even if you did win, after an initial year or two of extra happiness, you are likely to be just as happy as you would be if you had not won at all).



Please email me if you think that this needs editing (see my profile).

Keywords: 'lotteries'; 'happiness'; 'likelihood of dying'; 'things to do'.

Markets Need Morals - Cultivating Anomie?

Why don't we all just give up? And only take interest in things that reward visceral influences? After all there are many meaningless, or negative, things in the world? Should we all just get drunk, and watch something pointless?

Firefox (and Microsoft) both went to some lengths to program in 'animations' in graphics - so that advertisers can distract you with motion, even if you would rather not look at their adverts. Learning to ignore signals, from what is a fundamental system to avoid risks (and so help survival), may not be helpful.

Amazon takes money to convince me I need eye surgery (and they claim they cannot block the adverts, although they are targeted at me personally). Facebook seems to think cosmetic surgery is what I need most (or, more likely, generates the most revenue). Google (via Adsense) thinks it would be optimal if I bought a vehicle that does 13 miles per gallon (5.5 km/litre; 18 litres/100km), costing around USD40,000. Do these things really make anyone happier? Or, the world a better place?

To what ends do they use beguiling images, sounds, or words?


Keywords: advertising; anomie; animated graphics; Firefox; cosmetic surgery

Hi & Welcome!

Send me a message and I'll get back to you...