I was going to reply to you upthread in the specific comment thread we were having, but instead will reply here.

I agree with much of what you've been saying throughout this comment thread. I think that we're probably about 75% in agreement about the goals of and preferred approaches to criminal justice.

Two areas where I suspect we differ slightly:

1. I do see some utility in retribution besides simple restoration of "karmic" or "cosmic" balance.

Whereas I agree with you that on a personal scale, I don't find much utility in punishing so as to "balance scales" or what have you, I also understand that you and I are in a distinct minority. Particularly among the Abrahamic religions (which comprise an overwhelming majority of both the global and U.S. populations), retribution is integral to the concept of criminal justice in those belief systems. Therefore, not only is it inevitable that a criminal justice system - a political creation - will reflect the beliefs of a majority of a given population's members, it should do so. For failure to do so leads to the pervasive sense that the justice system doesn't work which leads to both a) more criminality; and b) all manner of vigilantism and lawlessness.

In other words, it's important that we change people's beliefs about criminal justice first, THEN we change criminal justice.

2. An area which, IMHO, you are overlooking is the fourth goal of criminal justice. You referred to three upthread (a great comment, BTW), but in my criminal justice studies I was always taught four - with the fourth being general deterrence: the notion that it's important for a society to signal at-large that crime will be punished, and specific crimes will be punished in a specific way.

So while you've been talking a lot about recidivism, or preventing specific criminals from re-offending, there is a view that the justice system should seek to avoid offending in the first place by sending such clear signals.

I'll concede that the justice system shouldn't be the primary method through which we seek to prevent crime from happening in the first place. We should focus on root causes of crime: economic inequalities and deprivations, substance abuse, child abuse, mental health problems, etc., even beyond - into the newer scientific frontiers of understanding the human brain and genetic predispositions to various biological traits that might correlate with criminality.

However, that doesn't mean that we should exclude from the criminal justice system the objective of preventing crime in the first place. It can and should be part of a multi-faceted approach that includes the aforementioned societal changes. Because while the empirical evidence shows that severity of punishment does not reduce criminality, the prospect that criminality will be apprehended and punished does appear effective at reducing it.

In other words, giving people "Get out of jail free" cards, by which we completely forego privation of liberty in lieu of therapeutic methods could, and likely would result in increased criminality. It simply wouldn't be seen as a real punishment.

If a magic wand existed by which you could tap people on the head and cause them to never rape again, sure, I would prefer that to jail.

But therapy doesn't work that way. It takes time (sometimes an entire lifetime), it doesn't always result in desired objectives, and it requires genuine effort and a desire for change on the part of the person being counseled.

So if you're asking me whether I think jailed rapists should receive counseling? Yes, I agree with that. If you're asking me whether we should substitute jailing for counseling, hell no.

What would you say to a woman who is raped by a person who was recently given a sentence of counseling instead of prison? "Sorry, I guess the counseling didn't go as planned!"

Again, you can't use long-term solutions to address imminent safety requirements.

OK, but do others who would ascribe to restorative justice? And what are the implications of that?

In other words, economic condition is only one of many factors that lead people to commit crime. Do we eschew jailing people generally for crimes related to these factors? Or only ones that we happen to sympathize with?

Should we eschew jailing somebody who scams little old grandmas out of their life savings because their parents never taught them empathy or impulse control? Should we, as a society be doing a better job teaching young people about empathy for others, selflessness, and controlling impulses, and therefore, nobody should be jailed for scamming grandmas until we figure out as a society how to do so?

Do restorative justice advocates believe in addressing factors that lead to criminality across the board, or only in certain instances and with certain classes of criminals?

It's a statistical fact that men commit far, far more sexual assault than women do. So there appears to be sex/gender component to the crime of sexual assault - whether that be biological or psycho-social.

Would restorative justice advocates call for not jailing criminals convicted of sexual assault, but instead having them engage in some sort of psychiatric treatment to address the larger (biological, psychological, social) factors contributing to their sexual crimes?

Personally, I believe in the not-so-controversial view that there's a pressing need, for the protection of the public, to jail rapists. And while I agree that addressing "big picture" factors is important, that need is secondary to this more immediate need of protecting society.

In short, this discussion is far more open-ended than simply "poverty tends to lead to crime". As science advances in the area of understanding brain chemistry, genetics, and their tremendous impacts on our personalities, how we behave, how we cognize, etc. the questions that arise are ones like: "Is anybody really 'responsible' for anything they do? Does anybody actually have free will?"

But answering those questions does not obviate the need to protect society from violence in the meantime.

>Last time I checked, rich teens poor people are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens rich people for burglary and robbery white collar crime.

>Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's rich person's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

OR

>Last time I checked, rich teens women are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens men for burglary and robbery sexual assault.

>Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's man's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

Does your proof hold when the criminal is somebody who is a member of a group that you may not sympathize with?