4 ms·
This doesn't have to be a political issue. No matter how "tough on crime" you are, bringing down recividism rates should be a priority for everyone. If nothing
by whack 8y ago
This doesn't have to be a political issue. No matter how "tough on crime" you are, bringing down recividism rates should be a priority for everyone. If nothing else, then at least for practical reasons.
When you deprive prisoners of meaningful interactions with people on the outside, you are isolating them more and more from the "civilian" population, and civilian life. Which invariably means you're pushing them closer to other prisoners and prison gangs. As a direct result of this, when they leave prison, they won't have anyone else to turn to, in order to get their life back on track. The only option they know, and can easily access, is a life of crime together with their prison-peers.
By not helping prisoners integrate into normal society, you are directly contributing to robbery, gang violence and homicide. That's the very opposite of being "tough on crime".
- magduf 8y agoThe "tough on crime" crowd doesn't think things through this much. All they care about is punishing people.
- burfog 8y agoI think you didn't notice the connection between "bringing down recividism rates should be a priority for everyone" and "when they leave prison". Make that "if they leave prison". Recividism is zero if they never leave.
- whack 8y agoI can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Are you advocating life imprisonment for crimes like robbery?
- burfog 8y agoI can't tell either. It's just an observation of something that is factually correct. I'm pointing out the coldly rational conclusion. I don't think I intend to advocate either way. Most robbers will reoffend. That really isn't OK. People get badly hurt and even killed in many cases, often including the robber. The robber may be safer in prison.