8 ms·

I'm just giving anecdata here so I'm curious to see if you agree with me. Having known two people that went to prison, my opinion on the system is that I think

I'm just giving anecdata here so I'm curious to see if you agree with me. Having known two people that went to prison, my opinion on the system is that I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason. That being said, a lot of people I meet seem to associate going to prison with deserving to live in a hellhole. No one considers the social exclusion itself a hellhole as evidenced by the ubiquitousness of rape jokes about prison. The reason I mentioned that the point about the prisoners deserving it from a legal perspective is because I think this is the point where most people lose sympathy for the prisoner population, it's the moment when they just sort've assume that anything that comes after being found guilty is just more of a reason not to commit a crime in the first place which is a horrific outlook in my opinion.

pmarreck 9y ago
> I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason Or not, if most of the incriminating information was eyewitness testimony, the #1 cause of wrongful convictions: https://www.innocenceproject.org/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/ MY opinion of the US criminal justice system is that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation is almost definitely not being followed, with the bias far into the false-positive conviction camp. Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? In other words, set up a mock situation where you know in advance who is innocent and who is not (because it's a setup), and run a mock trial by all the rules using actual jurors, and compare the outcome of the trial to the actual innocence or guilt of the actor?
- EggsOnToast 9y ago
  I agree. That being said, the reason I tried to choose my words carefully is that, in this instance, I think your point mainly functions as a distraction. I agree that things like witness testimony are sub-par as numerous studies have shown, but that's also an issue wholly separate from the point I was trying to make and I felt like mentioning it would be more of a distraction than a boon with regard to highlighting that there is a difference between being guilty and deserving to be imprisoned and purposely making life needlessly hellish for the inmates.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  > Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? I can think of a few. 1. That costs time and money. Even if it would help, I see it being very difficult to justify, essentially, "secret shoppers" for the court system. I think it also kind of underestimates how much time, money, and effort goes into trials. It's not like a quick batch of unit tests. It involves lawyers, judges, jury selection (if it's a jury trial), etc. And juries themselves are made up of people who have to take time off work, miss important events, etc. You can't just (somehow while avoiding detection) fake a trial, and then go "surprise, this was just a test!" At the very least it would just piss a lot of people off. That's not to say that there's no way to make sure our legal system is functioning properly, it's just I don't think mock trials are the right approach. Currently, I believe, the rest of the court system is relied upon to police itself, with the help of the legislative branch. Different levels of courts, ostensibly, keep each other in check (e.g. if you disagree with a lower court ruling, you can appeal to a higher court, which then makes a decision, and if you don't like that, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, etc.) Congress also has the power to do things like create federal judgeships, so presumably they have other powers to regulate and manage the federal judiciary (state judiciaries are, I imagine, left to the individual states to oversee.) 2. Cynically, there are certain vested interests that want the legal system to function the way it does (e.g. people who own private prisons and people who profit off of minor drug offenders being put away for life). There's also good old fashioned racism and classism, helping keep the overwhelmingly poor, black prison population stuck where they are. 3. I don't think it would actually tell you much; there are too many variables: different lawyers, different judges, different jurors, different facts, etc. Even if you ran the same trial with the exact same people and circumstances, but on a different day or something, you could get wildly different results. The court system is not deterministic, not by a long shot. The court system also doesn't deal in absolutes like that. It's not "is this person definitely guilty of a crime?", it's "are we sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this person committed a crime (based on all of the evidence)?" Because it's impossible to know the entire truth. Sometimes it's impossible to know much of anything at all, at least with certainty. Did OJ commit those murders? We'll never /know/ know in the sense that when I flip a coin I can see that it lands on heads, or in the sense that I know the earth is a spheroid (i.e. it's something that happened in the past and we're trying to determine exactly the series of events given limited information).
- schoen 9y ago
  Another test which I think has been done on rare occasions is measuring the inter-rater reliability between different juries (which could be done by having several juries hear the same trial and then deliberating independently). (It's harder to do this with judges if the judges are also overseeing the trial and ruling on evidentiary and procedural matters.)
- edanm 9y ago
  > Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? In other words, set up a mock situation where you know in advance who is innocent and who is not (because it's a setup), and run a mock trial by all the rules using actual jurors, and compare the outcome of the trial to the actual innocence or guilt of the actor? Probably for the same reason most things are or aren't done - some form of status-quo bias. I mean, someone has to think of the idea, push it, administer it, etc. It's a lot of work. And no one really has an incentive to do that work right now. Btw, your statement isn't really accurate: >> I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason >Or not, if most of the incriminating information was eyewitness testimony, the #1 cause of wrongful convictions: The fact that eyewitness testimony is the #1 cause of wrongful convictions doesn't tell us anything about the rate at which wrong convictions occur. It's possible for eyewitness testimony to be the #1 cause of wrongful convictions, but for there to be only e.g. 3 wrong convictions a year out of 100k trials. Which would probably be pretty "acceptable". (I say this because it sounded like you were making the common probability mistake of flipping two things: knowledge of how often a wrongful conviction is caused by eyewitness testimony, and knowledge of how often eyewitness testimony causes a wrongful conviction. Knowing the former doesn't mean we know the latter. Not sure if you're actually claiming this, but wanted to clarify what it sounded like to me).
  - edanm 9y ago
    Also, just to answer your actual hypothetical of "testing" the criminal justice system: I'm not sure how you would test it. You can run a "mock" trial, although I'm not sure it's so easy - to be realistic, I think you need to create a scenario which can plausibly go in either direction (innocent or guilty). But what would that tell you? I mean, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a pretty high standard and all, but if you make it seem pretty clear that someone is guilty when they're "really" innocent, that doesn't mean much, because this is fiction - you made up a tricky case, and people got it wrong. So what? The question is how often does real life cause a tricky scenario to manifest. You can go the other way and set up a situation that's pretty clear, but I'm not sure that will be very insightful. That's not to say we can't think of some way to test the system which does work - I'm sure smarter and more knowledgeable people than me can think of something. But that brings us to problem number 2 - now what? Let's say people got it wrong. What do you do? It's not like you can just change the way trials work - you need laws for that. The most you can reasonably do is use trial tests as a basis for potentially changing the law, but that's before any politics gets involved. Realistically, I'm not sure you can do much more than gets done now - once in a while an article gets written about a specific bad practice, it causes a public stir, and the law maybe gets changed. I'm not sure systematizing any of the testing steps really changes anything else in this picture. And we might as well ask about easier things, why don't we test them. I.e. why not test economic policies by building "test cities" which have different economic policies, and seeing which ones work? The States kind-of does this with different laws in different States. So there is kind of a natural experiment of the effect of different laws on economics, on justice, etc. This does affect some things, but I'm not sure the effect is very large (but then again, I'm not an American, so I'm not that up to date on the politics there. It's certainly an idea that a lot of lip-service is paid to, but maybe it's more than that).
- sathackr 9y ago
  The vast majority of convictions arise from plea bargaining. Prosecutors and law enforcement stack charges so that it appears to be a 'good deal' to just accept a plea deal rather than risk trial and spending decades behind bars on the slight chance you will be falsely convicted. IMO this is the single biggest problem with our system. Plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion makes a mockery of due process. Overloaded public defenders and the lack of competent and affordable defense attorneys shifts most of this problem to the lower income brackets.
  - dtech 9y ago
    There is not a lot wrong with plea bargaining if an innocent suspect can except a fair trail, it trades a more lenient sentence for criminals for a more efficient, speedier and cheaper system. The problem in the US is that poor innocent suspects have heavily stacked odds in a trail: multiple biases in judges and juries and no good lawyer with enough time for their defense. So an innocent must take the plea bargain because trail isn't a reasonable option.
    - romwell 9y ago
      So, there's a lot wrong about plea bargaining.
      - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
        No...I think the parent was arguing that the problems are around plea-bargaining, not plea-bargaining itself. I personally think the biggest problem is the inbalance between prosecutor's ability to threatening absurdly large sentences. That distorts the expected value of the risk analysis in the favor of prosecution. But if the worst-case penalties were more reasonable, then plea-bargaing could be a reasonable way to reduce risk.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Wrongful convictions are a serious issue, but at the same time, I don't think that we could say, even if it were solved tomorrow, that everything else about the correctional system is fine.
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
Being deprived of your freedom is punishment enough. That should be easy to accept for any libertarian and even many conservatives (the ones with libertarian tendencies). Anything beyond that is just adding insult to injury and only serves to reflect badly on the correctional system itself. For instance, I don't understand under what logic prisoners absolutely need to have their stuff chucked out on a regular basis. It serves to do what, besides further humiliate people who are already driven into the ground? You fuck up once and then your whole life goes in the shitter? What sense does that make? Whom does it benefit?
- jopsen 9y ago
  It benefits nobody, that is what makes it evil. Isn't the question why voters are so cruel? Why do American Christians only make headlines when they preach hatred against the LBQT community?
  - e12e 9y ago
    > It benefits nobody, that is what makes it evil. I heard you like to manufacture jeans and number plates. How about I pay you to house some workers you hardly have to pay to do the work?
  - buttershakes 9y ago
    It benefits the people in power. It benefits corporations who need cheap exploitable labor, or directly profit from the operation of the prison industry. It forces people into low paying menial jobs that keep large companies profitable. It serves a political purpose by scapegoating and marginalizing minorities. It fills the pockets of politicians who help to expand the system and cater to the military-industrial complex that perversely feeds on inequality. I don't think there is a system of oppression or economic control in existence that doesn't benefit somebody, directly or indirectly.
blacksmith_tb 9y ago
Yes, I would say that for many people, breaking laws carries a moral charge. Therefore prisoners are necessarily bad people, and deserve bad things (of course, people rarely extend this judgement to their own law-breaking, like speeding, jay-walking, etc.) And all of this when you could ask them where laws come from, if they can be changed or repealed and they'd agree they are just provisional. I think this attitude is mostly a developmental stage that has to be moved beyond - we are taught from an early age to follow rules, and only in adulthood do we potentially understand that sometimes it's better not to, or even morally necessary not to.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
People seem to be incredibly judgemental and lacking in compassion for people in different circumstances. There are a lot of people out there who haven't been exposed to drugs who believe that people who take drugs actually deserve to die. Recently in New Zealand several people ended up in hospital after taking dodgy "MDMA", the sheer number of comments on Facebook about how they had it coming, or they deserved it, or how they shouldn't have been admitted into hospital were disgusting. Regardless of whether they did was right or wrong, these are still human beings, they still have friends and families. Just the other day I walked past a dead heroin addict being wheeled into an ambulance. They had it coming to them, but I didn't feel like they deserved it. Nobody deserves to die on a street corner from an overdose. It's the same thing with prison. Out of sight, out of mind. If people have never met someone who has gone to prison, then to them it's an abstract concept. They can't imagine the pain or suffering. I've met a couple of people who've served time for drug related charges. Neither of them wanted to commit the crimes they did, but they hit rock bottom. When you're addicted to methamphetamine, you don't exactly think clearly or logically. But people don't see this. They see the world through the lens of their own reality and their own circumstances. It's the same thing that causes wealthy people to say that poor people just need to get better jobs. They have no concept of the world that these people live in.
- Thrwr11 9y ago
  Addicts are people and deserve help, sure. Most of the hate towards them comes from their bad behavior and how that affects other people. Deathwishes are just one way to cope with the inability to actually do anything about, say, noisy or violent drug addicts or criminals who don't care about other people.
  - meschi 9y ago
    I haven't seen one "noisy violent drug addict" in my life. I am not saying they don't exist, but the vast majority of drug users or even addicts are not discernible as such. Anyway, that is my European perspective.
    - 9y ago
Thrwr11 9y ago
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. Anecdatum does not exist.
__s 9y ago
If we afren't looking to rehabilitate then we should focus on reducing the cost of capital punishment & begin executing inmates
- geocar 9y ago
  The reason we don't execute inmates isn't because Americans want rehabilitation, but because they recognise that the Law isn't infallible, and sometimes Innocent people go to jail, and to that end, you can't really have take-backs for an execution. But you're right about cost reduction. I think it costs somewhere around $40k per year to incarcerate an inmate, so how about we just pay them? We can literally put them in a flatshare, feed them and water them, and it'll still be cheaper than putting them in jail.
emodendroket 9y ago
I mean, the very idea that prison rape jokes are widespread is illustrative of a certain barbarism in our collective thinking.

pmarreck 9y ago

> I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason Or not, if most of the incriminating information was eyewitness testimony, the #1 cause of wrongful convictions: https://www.innocenceproject.org/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/ MY opinion of the US criminal justice system is that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation is almost definitely not being followed, with the bias far into the false-positive conviction camp. Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? In other words, set up a mock situation where you know in advance who is innocent and who is not (because it's a setup), and run a mock trial by all the rules using actual jurors, and compare the outcome of the trial to the actual innocence or guilt of the actor?

EggsOnToast 9y ago
I agree. That being said, the reason I tried to choose my words carefully is that, in this instance, I think your point mainly functions as a distraction. I agree that things like witness testimony are sub-par as numerous studies have shown, but that's also an issue wholly separate from the point I was trying to make and I felt like mentioning it would be more of a distraction than a boon with regard to highlighting that there is a difference between being guilty and deserving to be imprisoned and purposely making life needlessly hellish for the inmates.
tachyoff 9y ago
> Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? I can think of a few. 1. That costs time and money. Even if it would help, I see it being very difficult to justify, essentially, "secret shoppers" for the court system. I think it also kind of underestimates how much time, money, and effort goes into trials. It's not like a quick batch of unit tests. It involves lawyers, judges, jury selection (if it's a jury trial), etc. And juries themselves are made up of people who have to take time off work, miss important events, etc. You can't just (somehow while avoiding detection) fake a trial, and then go "surprise, this was just a test!" At the very least it would just piss a lot of people off. That's not to say that there's no way to make sure our legal system is functioning properly, it's just I don't think mock trials are the right approach. Currently, I believe, the rest of the court system is relied upon to police itself, with the help of the legislative branch. Different levels of courts, ostensibly, keep each other in check (e.g. if you disagree with a lower court ruling, you can appeal to a higher court, which then makes a decision, and if you don't like that, you can appeal to the Supreme Court, etc.) Congress also has the power to do things like create federal judgeships, so presumably they have other powers to regulate and manage the federal judiciary (state judiciaries are, I imagine, left to the individual states to oversee.) 2. Cynically, there are certain vested interests that want the legal system to function the way it does (e.g. people who own private prisons and people who profit off of minor drug offenders being put away for life). There's also good old fashioned racism and classism, helping keep the overwhelmingly poor, black prison population stuck where they are. 3. I don't think it would actually tell you much; there are too many variables: different lawyers, different judges, different jurors, different facts, etc. Even if you ran the same trial with the exact same people and circumstances, but on a different day or something, you could get wildly different results. The court system is not deterministic, not by a long shot. The court system also doesn't deal in absolutes like that. It's not "is this person definitely guilty of a crime?", it's "are we sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this person committed a crime (based on all of the evidence)?" Because it's impossible to know the entire truth. Sometimes it's impossible to know much of anything at all, at least with certainty. Did OJ commit those murders? We'll never /know/ know in the sense that when I flip a coin I can see that it lands on heads, or in the sense that I know the earth is a spheroid (i.e. it's something that happened in the past and we're trying to determine exactly the series of events given limited information).
schoen 9y ago
Another test which I think has been done on rare occasions is measuring the inter-rater reliability between different juries (which could be done by having several juries hear the same trial and then deliberating independently). (It's harder to do this with judges if the judges are also overseeing the trial and ruling on evidentiary and procedural matters.)
edanm 9y ago
> Come to think of it, why is the criminal justice system not "tested"? In other words, set up a mock situation where you know in advance who is innocent and who is not (because it's a setup), and run a mock trial by all the rules using actual jurors, and compare the outcome of the trial to the actual innocence or guilt of the actor? Probably for the same reason most things are or aren't done - some form of status-quo bias. I mean, someone has to think of the idea, push it, administer it, etc. It's a lot of work. And no one really has an incentive to do that work right now. Btw, your statement isn't really accurate: >> I think people usually go to prison for the legally correct reason >Or not, if most of the incriminating information was eyewitness testimony, the #1 cause of wrongful convictions: The fact that eyewitness testimony is the #1 cause of wrongful convictions doesn't tell us anything about the rate at which wrong convictions occur. It's possible for eyewitness testimony to be the #1 cause of wrongful convictions, but for there to be only e.g. 3 wrong convictions a year out of 100k trials. Which would probably be pretty "acceptable". (I say this because it sounded like you were making the common probability mistake of flipping two things: knowledge of how often a wrongful conviction is caused by eyewitness testimony, and knowledge of how often eyewitness testimony causes a wrongful conviction. Knowing the former doesn't mean we know the latter. Not sure if you're actually claiming this, but wanted to clarify what it sounded like to me).
- edanm 9y ago
  Also, just to answer your actual hypothetical of "testing" the criminal justice system: I'm not sure how you would test it. You can run a "mock" trial, although I'm not sure it's so easy - to be realistic, I think you need to create a scenario which can plausibly go in either direction (innocent or guilty). But what would that tell you? I mean, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a pretty high standard and all, but if you make it seem pretty clear that someone is guilty when they're "really" innocent, that doesn't mean much, because this is fiction - you made up a tricky case, and people got it wrong. So what? The question is how often does real life cause a tricky scenario to manifest. You can go the other way and set up a situation that's pretty clear, but I'm not sure that will be very insightful. That's not to say we can't think of some way to test the system which does work - I'm sure smarter and more knowledgeable people than me can think of something. But that brings us to problem number 2 - now what? Let's say people got it wrong. What do you do? It's not like you can just change the way trials work - you need laws for that. The most you can reasonably do is use trial tests as a basis for potentially changing the law, but that's before any politics gets involved. Realistically, I'm not sure you can do much more than gets done now - once in a while an article gets written about a specific bad practice, it causes a public stir, and the law maybe gets changed. I'm not sure systematizing any of the testing steps really changes anything else in this picture. And we might as well ask about easier things, why don't we test them. I.e. why not test economic policies by building "test cities" which have different economic policies, and seeing which ones work? The States kind-of does this with different laws in different States. So there is kind of a natural experiment of the effect of different laws on economics, on justice, etc. This does affect some things, but I'm not sure the effect is very large (but then again, I'm not an American, so I'm not that up to date on the politics there. It's certainly an idea that a lot of lip-service is paid to, but maybe it's more than that).
sathackr 9y ago
The vast majority of convictions arise from plea bargaining. Prosecutors and law enforcement stack charges so that it appears to be a 'good deal' to just accept a plea deal rather than risk trial and spending decades behind bars on the slight chance you will be falsely convicted. IMO this is the single biggest problem with our system. Plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion makes a mockery of due process. Overloaded public defenders and the lack of competent and affordable defense attorneys shifts most of this problem to the lower income brackets.
- dtech 9y ago
  There is not a lot wrong with plea bargaining if an innocent suspect can except a fair trail, it trades a more lenient sentence for criminals for a more efficient, speedier and cheaper system. The problem in the US is that poor innocent suspects have heavily stacked odds in a trail: multiple biases in judges and juries and no good lawyer with enough time for their defense. So an innocent must take the plea bargain because trail isn't a reasonable option.
  - romwell 9y ago
    So, there's a lot wrong about plea bargaining.
    - em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
      No...I think the parent was arguing that the problems are around plea-bargaining, not plea-bargaining itself. I personally think the biggest problem is the inbalance between prosecutor's ability to threatening absurdly large sentences. That distorts the expected value of the risk analysis in the favor of prosecution. But if the worst-case penalties were more reasonable, then plea-bargaing could be a reasonable way to reduce risk.
emodendroket 9y ago
Wrongful convictions are a serious issue, but at the same time, I don't think that we could say, even if it were solved tomorrow, that everything else about the correctional system is fine.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

Being deprived of your freedom is punishment enough. That should be easy to accept for any libertarian and even many conservatives (the ones with libertarian tendencies). Anything beyond that is just adding insult to injury and only serves to reflect badly on the correctional system itself. For instance, I don't understand under what logic prisoners absolutely need to have their stuff chucked out on a regular basis. It serves to do what, besides further humiliate people who are already driven into the ground? You fuck up once and then your whole life goes in the shitter? What sense does that make? Whom does it benefit?

jopsen 9y ago
It benefits nobody, that is what makes it evil. Isn't the question why voters are so cruel? Why do American Christians only make headlines when they preach hatred against the LBQT community?
- e12e 9y ago
  > It benefits nobody, that is what makes it evil. I heard you like to manufacture jeans and number plates. How about I pay you to house some workers you hardly have to pay to do the work?
- buttershakes 9y ago
  It benefits the people in power. It benefits corporations who need cheap exploitable labor, or directly profit from the operation of the prison industry. It forces people into low paying menial jobs that keep large companies profitable. It serves a political purpose by scapegoating and marginalizing minorities. It fills the pockets of politicians who help to expand the system and cater to the military-industrial complex that perversely feeds on inequality. I don't think there is a system of oppression or economic control in existence that doesn't benefit somebody, directly or indirectly.

blacksmith_tb 9y ago

Yes, I would say that for many people, breaking laws carries a moral charge. Therefore prisoners are necessarily bad people, and deserve bad things (of course, people rarely extend this judgement to their own law-breaking, like speeding, jay-walking, etc.) And all of this when you could ask them where laws come from, if they can be changed or repealed and they'd agree they are just provisional. I think this attitude is mostly a developmental stage that has to be moved beyond - we are taught from an early age to follow rules, and only in adulthood do we potentially understand that sometimes it's better not to, or even morally necessary not to.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

People seem to be incredibly judgemental and lacking in compassion for people in different circumstances. There are a lot of people out there who haven't been exposed to drugs who believe that people who take drugs actually deserve to die. Recently in New Zealand several people ended up in hospital after taking dodgy "MDMA", the sheer number of comments on Facebook about how they had it coming, or they deserved it, or how they shouldn't have been admitted into hospital were disgusting. Regardless of whether they did was right or wrong, these are still human beings, they still have friends and families. Just the other day I walked past a dead heroin addict being wheeled into an ambulance. They had it coming to them, but I didn't feel like they deserved it. Nobody deserves to die on a street corner from an overdose. It's the same thing with prison. Out of sight, out of mind. If people have never met someone who has gone to prison, then to them it's an abstract concept. They can't imagine the pain or suffering. I've met a couple of people who've served time for drug related charges. Neither of them wanted to commit the crimes they did, but they hit rock bottom. When you're addicted to methamphetamine, you don't exactly think clearly or logically. But people don't see this. They see the world through the lens of their own reality and their own circumstances. It's the same thing that causes wealthy people to say that poor people just need to get better jobs. They have no concept of the world that these people live in.

Thrwr11 9y ago
Addicts are people and deserve help, sure. Most of the hate towards them comes from their bad behavior and how that affects other people. Deathwishes are just one way to cope with the inability to actually do anything about, say, noisy or violent drug addicts or criminals who don't care about other people.
- meschi 9y ago
  I haven't seen one "noisy violent drug addict" in my life. I am not saying they don't exist, but the vast majority of drug users or even addicts are not discernible as such. Anyway, that is my European perspective.
  - 9y ago

Thrwr11 9y ago

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. Anecdatum does not exist.

__s 9y ago

If we afren't looking to rehabilitate then we should focus on reducing the cost of capital punishment & begin executing inmates

geocar 9y ago
The reason we don't execute inmates isn't because Americans want rehabilitation, but because they recognise that the Law isn't infallible, and sometimes Innocent people go to jail, and to that end, you can't really have take-backs for an execution. But you're right about cost reduction. I think it costs somewhere around $40k per year to incarcerate an inmate, so how about we just pay them? We can literally put them in a flatshare, feed them and water them, and it'll still be cheaper than putting them in jail.

emodendroket 9y ago

I mean, the very idea that prison rape jokes are widespread is illustrative of a certain barbarism in our collective thinking.