3 ms·

I believe that prison for non-violent crimes is an absolutely antiquate concept and it doesn't belong to a modern society. There are far more effective ways to

I believe that prison for non-violent crimes is an absolutely antiquate concept and it doesn't belong to a modern society. There are far more effective ways to prevent crime and educate people. How much good could be done for society if we had millions of people doing community work instead of being imprisoned? But I'm afraid society is not ready yet for such a liberal stance, and there are powerful interests working against it as well (think private prisons).

baddox 16y ago
I agree, although it would be important to define "violent" in some formal way. Is theft through fraud violence? What about inciting others to violence?
- pjscott 16y ago
  One possible hack you could try is defining three categories: 1. Definitely violent crimes, like stabbing someone and taking his wallet. 2. Definitely non-violent crimes, like selling illegal drugs. 3. Crimes we're not entirely sure about. If you imprison people whose crimes fall in this category, they should only go to prisons with other people in this category. Of course nothing is a perfect solution here, but I think this might be a helpful way of thinking about it.
  - baddox 16y ago
    Perhaps it's best to say we shouldn't have prison sentences for victim-less crimes. That way, we can clearly identify drug possession or dealing as victim-less, and fraud clearly has victims. Of course, at that point, you can easily argue that "victim-less crimes" shouldn't be crimes at all. Some sort of exception would have to be made for simple stuff like traffic/parking violations.
    - wtallis 16y ago
      Traffic and parking crimes have victims, they're just not easy to identify. When you make crazy maneuvers on a highway without signalling and trigger a traffic jam that persists for two hours, you have quite a few victims, all affected in minor ways, but it adds up. Parking violations do not always have victims, but clearly you shouldn't be off the hook just because you got lucky that nobody handicapped showed up to find you had taken the spot reserved for people like them. We don't need any special exceptions in order to keep those violations in the same category as fraud.

baddox 16y ago

I agree, although it would be important to define "violent" in some formal way. Is theft through fraud violence? What about inciting others to violence?

pjscott 16y ago
One possible hack you could try is defining three categories: 1. Definitely violent crimes, like stabbing someone and taking his wallet. 2. Definitely non-violent crimes, like selling illegal drugs. 3. Crimes we're not entirely sure about. If you imprison people whose crimes fall in this category, they should only go to prisons with other people in this category. Of course nothing is a perfect solution here, but I think this might be a helpful way of thinking about it.
- baddox 16y ago
  Perhaps it's best to say we shouldn't have prison sentences for victim-less crimes. That way, we can clearly identify drug possession or dealing as victim-less, and fraud clearly has victims. Of course, at that point, you can easily argue that "victim-less crimes" shouldn't be crimes at all. Some sort of exception would have to be made for simple stuff like traffic/parking violations.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    Traffic and parking crimes have victims, they're just not easy to identify. When you make crazy maneuvers on a highway without signalling and trigger a traffic jam that persists for two hours, you have quite a few victims, all affected in minor ways, but it adds up. Parking violations do not always have victims, but clearly you shouldn't be off the hook just because you got lucky that nobody handicapped showed up to find you had taken the spot reserved for people like them. We don't need any special exceptions in order to keep those violations in the same category as fraud.