3 ms·
I know this will sound pretty simplistic, but a prisoner is either a threat to society or they are not. If they are a threat to society, why are they given acc
by bilbo0s 8y ago
I know this will sound pretty simplistic, but a prisoner is either a threat to society or they are not.
If they are a threat to society, why are they given access to computers, the internet and programming tools? (The security implications should be obvious there.) Even better, why are they let outside the prison at all?
If they are not a threat to society, why am I paying any amount of tax money to keep them in prison? We should pay zero dollars for any offender who is so little of a threat that we can let him/her outside of the prison. (Or, indeed, give him/her hacking tools.)
Any prisoner qualifying for these work release programs, should probably be released. And the money paid incarcerating them can be saved, or at least put to better uses.
- noobermin 8y agoThis strikes to the heart of what the prison strike is supposed to point out. Certain companies (like private prisons and contractors who make money off of prisons) make profit out of people being in prisoned, so it is in their self interest to keep people, even people who are not dangerous to anyone in prison because it affects their bottom line. They then lobby politicians and the like to keep their place, get more funding, as well as lobby for legislation like mandatory minimums so they get a fresh supply of humans to exploit. So, it never was for the general public's interest, it's in the private interest of these corporations.
- tcbawo 8y agoThere is a theory of rehabilitation, although prison is probably the least effective form of it.
- jpindar 8y agoWhat country are you talking about that gives prisoners "access to computers, the internet and programming tools"? (I've heard of them being able to send email to whitelisted addresses from locked down kiosks, but that's not the internet as we know it.)