4 ms·

I didn't downvote you for "no reason." I downvoted you for a laughably I'll thought out post. Your logic suggests we shouldn't let them get their hands on anyt

I didn't downvote you for "no reason." I downvoted you for a laughably I'll thought out post. Your logic suggests we shouldn't let them get their hands on anything that could be used illegally - so let's keep them away from kitchen knives, automotive repair (makes it easier to steal cars), coaching baseball (all those dangerous blunt instruments), gardening (opportunities to case houses), etc. If precluding all future chance of nefarious activity is the goal, you don't have a system of rehabilitation, you just have an excuse to exile people.

dv_dt 9y ago
> If precluding all future chance of nefarious activity is the goal, you don't have a system of rehabilitation, you just have an excuse to exile people. And I would contend that if there is a lacking system of rehabilitation, you are actually causing an increase in criminal activity as well as incurring excessive expenses required to support a punishment-oriented infrastructure.
wahern 9y ago
Perhaps he thought the issue was permitting inmates to write programs that, while they were institutionalized, would be released to the public. Maybe they would be permitted to electronically converse and cooperate with open source project maintainers. That's what I thought before reading the article, probably because I was primed by the comment about Caspia. I still wouldn't agree that categorically restricting such activity is reasonable, but it's less laughable in that context.