Here’s Bill Maher’s monologue from his latest episode of Real Time. It’s a serious (but humorous) look at America’s deeply dysfunctional prison system, but beginning with speculation about Trump getting raped in prison.
As I’ve written ad nauseam, America deliberately creates prisons to be horrible, demoralizing, and—in the extreme form of SuperMax prisons—liable to drive their inmates insane. All of this comes from the belief that prisoners had free will when they did their crime, and thus must undergo severe retribution. Yes, incarceration can be useful for keeping bad people out of society, helpin reform them, and even detering others from criminality, but retribution? If you’re a determinist, it doesn’t make sense. That’s why enlightened countries like Norway treat their prisoners like human beings. That may explain why Norway’s recidivism rate is about a quarter of America’s (rates mentioned in the video below).
The whole justice system—not just in America but nearly everywhere—is based on the assumption that criminals could have avoided doing their crimes—that they have libertarian free will. Thus they must be punished for making the wrong “choice.” Both Robert Sapolsky and I, diehard determinists, think that one of the biggest implications of determinism is the pressing need for judicial reform. And this attitude als0 pervades Maher’s monologue.
This is really a video op-ed, and I can’t help but believe that, at least for the video generation, it’s more effective than a serious piece in the New York Times.
h/t: Leo
Sorry Jerry, Dan Dennett the greatest scientific philosopher of our time, got the Free Will issue right.
I disagree and I’ve written about it here. Your comment is patronizing, as well. Sorry, UOJ, but Dennett got it wrong insofar as most people think of free will as “I could have done otherwise at any moment.” Sam Harris and Robert Sapolsky got it right, and if you think Dennett is right because he was a great scientific philosopher, well, then what about Sapolsky, who is a much better biologist and neurologist than was Dennett? Argue the facts or assertions, not how “great” an authority was.
I hate arguments from authority, and I don’t like being patronized with phrases like “Sorry, Jerry. . ” or “With all due respect. . “
The problem with guys like you is the size of your ego. Did you have the chutzpah to publicly debate Dan? Of course not! Robert and Sam did and they looked foolish.
The problem with guys like you is your ignorance. Yes, Dan and I had dueling back-to-back presentations on free will at the Moving Naturalism Forward conference and discussion afterward, not to mention a three-hour argument in the car on the way home. And no, Dan didn’t steamroller me. So there. I don’t know about the other debates; haven’t seen them. Don’t let the door hit you on the tuchas.
UOJ, I’m not sure which debates you listened to, but though I admired Dan tremendously (rest in peace), I never heard him make any points in favor of compatibilist free will that didn’t mainly involve shifting the goal posts/redefining what “free will” means. I’ve not encountered any convincing refutation of the arguments Sam Harris made in his excellent little book, “Free Will”.
Sam Harris’s book is only an argument against libertarian free will. It doesn’t even attempt to rebut compatibilist conceptions of free will, and therefore a compatibilist need not refute it.
As to whether compatibilism is a “redefinition” of what “free will” means, well, that would depend on what the original definition was. The compatibilist maintains that the term has always had both libertarian and compatibilist interpretations.
By all accounts that I have read Dennett was a brilliant thinker and philosopher and I have no reason to doubt it. But I do think he was wrong on his free will views.
There are two types of action: determined and random. An action is nonrandom by virtue of being determined. An action is random by virtue of not being determined. This is both definitional and principle – an action not determined by something is determined by nothing. Since nothing is that which does not exist, has no properties and can have no effect on anything, any action determined by nothing is, and can only be, random.
A problem with compatibilist arguments is that they seem to always involve an implied duality. Take emergence for example. If a thought emerges from brain activity but is not determined by that activity then how is that thought not random? For it not to be random requires a hidden implied essence or self or soul that somehow makes the thought nonrandom. There are two problems with that. For one there is no evidence that this essence, self or soul exists. But more importantly even if such a dual entity controlling the brain existed it could not effect free will. Any entity that exists, material or otherwise, exists by virtue of having properties. Those properties define the entity and must determine everything about it including its actions.
In a discussion between Sam Harris and Dennett, Dennett imagined a scenario where he was in a boat. He said that while he couldn’t control the wind or the water he could control how he responded to them. He seemed to be saying that while his brain processes were determined, they were free in respect to entities outside himself. But this is logically incorrect. When two or more logical processes interact they do so as a single logical process. The only thing that could separate them is an action that is both non-determined and nonrandom (free will). But an action that is both non-determined AND nonrandom is nonsense – there is no such thing.
It’s important to understand that while we are made of matter, what defines us is not the matter itself but the logic that the matter carries – logic defined by the laws of physics. While existence can be materially delineated in myriad upon myriad of ways, those material delineations to not represent logical separations. We imagine that our skin both materially and logically separates us from the rest of existence but that is not true. While our skin does separate us materially from the outside world there is no logical separation.
John Oliver covered this on his show, as well. (Last Week Tonight.)
Our demographics are not the same. Native Norwegians make up ~88% of the population. Blacks—the greatest offenders of the US penal system—make up 37% of our prison population (despite black males comprising 6% of the US population).
Americans do not enjoy the vast social trust of Norwegians. Norway’s ethnic homogeneity and demographics foster social cohesion, shared ancestry/traditions/customs/language, and are not full of citizens gaming the system which in itself fosters a more equitable welfare state.
While the U.S. is focused on a ‘rights’ framework, Norway is geared toward collective responsibility.
Norwegians are much less likely to forego the success sequence: education, marriage, career.
Norway has a lower child poverty rate (see cause directly above).
Norway has far, far lower black-on-black crime (another factor driving our incarceration rates).
There are simply too many inmates for a speedy transition to a gymnasium-styled prison that is interchangeable with a community college. Would reform help? Probably, but not as much as intervention in the formative years, and that is where Norway has us beat.
Regardless, we need prison reform, and I think it would be faster than intervention in the formative years. For one thing, solitary confinement should be looked at very closely. Then look at the SUPERMAX prisons and tell me that those can’t be eliminated immediately. You have 23 hours per day in solitary (often for your whole life) and one hour of ourdoor exercise alone in a cage. No, I think substantial reform can be effected pretty quick. But of course you’re right about the demographic and cultural differences. But I don’t think that justifies at all the brutality and retributive aspects of our penal system.
Prior to 10/7, I immersed myself in true crime books and docs to relax. This research and indulgence made clear why Supermax prisons are a necessary evil. For example, a nuclear engineer who plotted to snuff out his judge, mutilate a witness, kill his best friend and ex-mistress (and this was *after* he was convicted of a double homicide) could not be managed in a regular prison as he continued to plot and influence prisoners slated for release that could do his bidding. The late Unabomber, El Chapo, and FBI agent Robert Hanssom also come to mind as unsuitable candidates for regular prison.
There is a small segment of the prison population that is so incorrigible, conniving, and dangerous that they simply cannot be left in a maximum-security prison. Many of these prisoners are highly intelligent with remarkable powers of persuasion and/or charisma to accomplish their murderous and nefarious goals.
Supermax prisons only house 1-2% of the entire penal population. These prisoners need a very high degree of carceral monitoring and resources. They are horrible institutions, yet necessary.
Some of the super baddies are at risk in regular prisons: their fellow inmates may kill them.
I thought rape jokes were beyond the pale so I’ll give Mahar’s video a miss. Thanks for the warning.
Maybe Norway has more humane prisons because the people in them are less hellish than those who populate America’s prisons. (Much like the question of what makes a bad school.). The lower recidivism rate could reflect a deterministically less violent and socially dysfunctional criminal population rather than anything about the prison philosophy itself. I don’t know if a Super-Max prison is designed to make inmates go insane or if it is designed to protect the rest of the inmates and the workers from the Super-Violent, or to protect the Super-Hated inmates from retribution by the general prison population.
Once the large number of violent unassimilable Muslim African migrants now destabilizing Swedish (but not Norwegian) society work their way into and out of the Swedish prisons, it will be interesting to revisit the Scandinavian recidivism rate. There is a hypothesis that could be tested here.
I hope Bill’s opening remark is untrue. Prison rape is at least as horrifying as other rape. There was lots of truth in this monologue, but almost nothing funny. I was surprised by much of the audience laughter and hope it was of the ‘nervous’ type. Our prison system should be a national embarrassment and I’ve only experienced it as a visitor.
Having experienced it in Florida (as a non-visitor), I can confirm, it is (or should be) an embarrassment. And, ironically, most of the worst people there were the guards.
The progressive left has had endless fun mocking Trump throughout every scandal, prosecution and is positively giggy about seeing him in a jump suit in prison. Why should the prospect of prison rape be any different? They are the ones keeping him in the news as much as or more than his supporters. They can’t get enough of him, and I’m beginning to think they want him to be elected, they’re addicted.
+1
At least on the media side, the best outcome is a Trump presidency. Then they can run non-stop fact checks, opposing editorials, doomer interviews, and hate-pieces, and their readership will click click click to get their daily dopamine fix.
It does go both ways too: the left media will run the anti-Trump stories, and the right media will run anti-left-media stories, and they’ll all profit off the salivating masses looking for their anger fix.
+1 (sigh)
RE: “enlightened countries like Norway treat their prisoners like human beings. That may explain why Norway’s recidivism rate is about a quarter of America’s (rates mentioned in the video below).”
An interesting article:
The myth of the Nordic rehabilitative paradise. June 3, 2024
Interpreting recidivism rates and understanding their causes
https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-nordic-rehabilitative
Below is an informative post on the “myth” of the Nordic lower recidivism rate
https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-nordic-rehabilitative
“Beaudry et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of psychological interventions. They found that there was substantial publication bias in favor of the interventions. After accounting for this, by excluding the smallest studies (<50 participants in intervention group), they found that therapy did not significantly reduce recidivism."
And….
"Perhaps the most convincing example of a clear beneficial effect on recidivism is medication for psychiatric disorders."
Locations, but not the nature of facilities, are about the only change over the last 40 years,
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/25/805469776/americas-mental-health-crisis-hidden-behind-bars
To what degree can one loosen security arrangements for Supermax prisoners without putting the guards at unreasonable risk? Do we want to give such prisoners opportunity to interact and coordinate their actions? If one needs to sacrifice the well-being of one group to protect the other, than this would be an easy call for me. This is not entirely unlike the dynamic that one must consider during war—whether it be about civilians or combatants, an enemy population or one’s own. I pause when hearing strong claims that retribution is the chief motivation—either during war or incarceration. It might be. It could be. It needn’t be. Sometimes it’s about safety and survival.
Regarding recidivism, this is a much lower concern for prisoners in Supermax facilities as they are far less likely ever to be released. As to other prisoners, we might also consider whether closing our mental health hospitals some 50+ years ago might have contributed to the sharp rise in the inmate population and to continuing recidivism (and homelessness and addiction).
Overall, the prison issue ties in well with the earlier post on psychology and the social sciences. We are groping for a proper balance between empathy and reason, between safety and security, between the well-being of some against the potential or real harms to others. One could ask: to what degree has empathy, when not sufficiently checked by reason, contributed to our social problems rather than ameliorated them? To what degree has it advanced our knowledge rather than hindered it? Can we even ask such questions in most professional settings? I understand the benefits of the empathetic response; I’m not convinced that we have wrestled sufficiently with its dangers. Perhaps it is another taboo.
It isn’t like Norway’s justice system never has to deal with perpetrators of heinous crimes. Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people, is being housed in conditions harsh by Norwegian standards but extremely tame compared to the likes of ADX Florence. Breivik has never attacked any guards or other inmates.
America and Norway’s prison systems are at both ends of the extreme offensive grade. One treats them worse than animals, the other better than plenty of disadvantaged people who never committed a crime in their lives.
I don’t need to take a position on free will vs determination to take a position on American prisons. They are inhumane, and have been for a long time. I read an article by a former inmate describing prison rape and I guarantee I never laugh at prison rape jokes. It is good that high profile people like Maher are bringing this issue to light. I believe mamy people think since these people are prisoners, they reap what they sow and their plight is not important. Not making hardened criminals out of non-violent offenders and reducing recidivism are practical reasons for prison reform. At bottom, treating criminals in a grotesque inhumane manner is intrinsically wrong. I am an atheist and one doesn’t need to believe in god to understand this. I am well-aware of the horrible violent crimes some people have committed, and they should be separated from society, not tortured. Finally, yes to Maher’s point about private prisons. Privatization of institutions for the public good in the US is undermines democracy,
What Emily said. And to comment on the OP,
More importantly and more relevantly, if you’re a humane person, it doesn’t make sense. And if you’re not, I’m not sure why determinism or the lack of it would sway you either way.
I agree with everything you said. Free will and just desert are among the most destructive and counterproductive ideas humans have come up with and that we allow them to essentially govern our society makes zero sense.
What was someone laughing at prison rape? I have a sibling who did some time in his early 20’s, was accosted with intent to be raped, fought it off long enough to avoid rape and be rewarded with time in solitary for fighting. I’ve know other men (not many because my demographic doesn’t have more in the way of criminals than white-guy weed/acid offender types) who were not so fortunate. Of course, I’ve read of prisoners in much worse situations, when it’s not “a rape” but really horrendous and chronic sex slavery. The idea the tRump would be raped in prison is, however, preposterous. Who the f–k is laughing about this?
Significant qualifiers should be added to any assertions about the success of the Nordic prison systems. Much of said success is an artifact of comparing disparate populations and inconsistent definitions of the recidivism rate. When comparing like to like, the gap between the Nordic countries and the United States all but disappears. cf. https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-the-nordic-rehabilitative for an in-depth analysis.
“Why The US Prison System Is The Worst In The Developed World”:
I think Hamas kills hostages not just because they hate Jews, which they do, but because they use dead bodies as hostages as well. They trade dead bodies for terrorists in Israeli prisons. So they take revenge and still have something they value.
I am extremely conflicted and confused about this particular issue surrounding free will, moral agency and prison, since it touches me in a profound and personal way, having spent 5 years in a US prison and then deported to France (which is no paradise). I got lost on my way to a Ph.D in philosophy (writing a thesis on evolutionary psychology) and fell into a depression that eventually derailed my life completely. I’ve read all three authors, Sapolsky, Dennett, and Coyne, at various points in my life. Indeed I read FAITH VS. FACT while in prison even though I’m a lifelong atheist. I gave the book to the prison library before I left the Missouri dept. of Correction. The majority of inmates are Christian (we were always called “offenders” within the system lest we ever forgot where we were. This reinforces a discouraging self-view to identify as an “offender”). Whatever sympathy anyone might have quickly evaporates once one discovers why I went to prison. As I spiraled into depression, in spite of taking anti-depressants. I was also using – and abusing – my Adderall for ADHD. I became disconnected from society as I lost each teaching job I had. I was an adjunct professor in the Department of philosophy but got fired for chronic absenteeism. I went on to teaching online only to become unemployed and then on food stamps. That was 2010. I turned to the solace of pornography. I lost all attachments to normal society. But much like drug addiction, pornography addiction can always become increasingly severe, growing ever in need of more. It was not long before I searched – and found – underage pornography, something I had never done before. It does not take long before underage porn becomes child porn, and in my mental state, I simply stopped making any distinction. I downloaded whatever I found. I did not buy any of it. It was all just there. I imagine that it’s still all there, floating around on the internet. Some of it might even be on servers controlled by the FBI. Did my consumption of it contribute to the manufacturing of it? Is it the case that were it not for viewers like me they would not have uploaded what I saw? Is that why I spent 5 years in prison? Did I need to go to prison or did I need some sort of therapy? I am, as you might have guessed by now, a pedophile, or maybe a pederast. Some people make some sort of distinction, but never mind that now. I pled guilty right away. It seemed to me that it was clearly me – and only me – that had committed this crime and seemingly out of my “own volition”. I seemed to have had a choice that, had I thought more clearly about it, I could have done otherwise. But of course that requires that I could have thought more clearly and deliberately about it. And I knew that it was wrong. In my more sober moments I repeatedly erased everything only to relapse again and again, until one day the FBI knocked at the door. It was too late. That was 2013. I was released in 2018 and deported to France. I was 61 years old. I am now 67 still trying to create some sort of life, trying to reinvent myself; but it’s awfully late in the day to be doing that. Prison has taken an awful toll. And deportation doubly so. I have lost all that was near and dear to me – all my books – all my notebooks – all my diaries – and saddest of all I lost my cat. For me, the issue of free will vs. determinism is not merely theoretical. And the issue of how to think about pedophiles and pedophilia is not merely academic. It’s a taboo a subject as there can be. I am not advocating for it not promoting it in any way, shape or form. It is a kind of mental illness but there’s not enough research given how sensitive this subject is. Surely there must be a better way than prison? I should be happy to talk at more length should anyone be interested.