5 ms·

The evidence is that incarceration just doesn’t work to deter crime or discourage recidivism. But America has the largest prison population in the world, and II

The evidence is that incarceration just doesn’t work to deter crime or discourage recidivism. But America has the largest prison population in the world, and IIRC, the largest proportion of its own citizens in prison. In a country that values punishment over any empirical improved outcomes, I wouldn’t hold my breath for people to care that taking a driver’s license away for unpaid support will end up hurting the children involved, or society as a whole.

saltyhitler 8y ago
Call me a radical but I don't understand why we put people in jail and just leave them there to rot. Empathy, it seems is our deterrent. I for one am a proponent for the death sentence or medical human testing as an alternative. We would of course make sure to do this to inmates who are incapable of changing or adapting behavior to conform, and also only to those who we are 100% committed crimes. We can give them all the resource in the world so they can find their place in society and "fit" in. However, if they don't, then can help greater society by being subjects to human testing for medication or other alternatives, and if not, they get the death sentence. Not only can this speed up our progress in achieving our medical goals, such as, cure for cancer and the likes. But it can save the government some money which they can use for other things like education.
- cazum 8y ago
  Great, let's start by making bad usernames illegal and you can be the first to try out the program.
- wwweston 8y ago
  I didn't really need someone to come along and serve as an example of not only some of the forms of thinking I talked about above but also as "criminal as sub-human other (not decent folks like me and mine)", but I guess it's a convenient underscoring of the idea that some people approach society very, very differently.
  - saltyhitler 8y ago
    It's actually very humane if you think about it. It's pragmatic at the core but still retains the humanity that you say. I believe you're saying it's inhumane because we kill, but if killing 1 person improves the lives of millions, is it still inhumane? Where do you draw the line? What if we help these people you consider "sub-human" to the best of our abilities? Let's say, you get 100 tries to be "human"? Isn't that a good limit to prove themselves based on their contribution in society? What if they don't? Should we just say, "ok, this person didn't do well, let's just leave them be and support them till they die".

saltyhitler 8y ago

Call me a radical but I don't understand why we put people in jail and just leave them there to rot. Empathy, it seems is our deterrent. I for one am a proponent for the death sentence or medical human testing as an alternative. We would of course make sure to do this to inmates who are incapable of changing or adapting behavior to conform, and also only to those who we are 100% committed crimes. We can give them all the resource in the world so they can find their place in society and "fit" in. However, if they don't, then can help greater society by being subjects to human testing for medication or other alternatives, and if not, they get the death sentence. Not only can this speed up our progress in achieving our medical goals, such as, cure for cancer and the likes. But it can save the government some money which they can use for other things like education.

cazum 8y ago
Great, let's start by making bad usernames illegal and you can be the first to try out the program.
wwweston 8y ago
I didn't really need someone to come along and serve as an example of not only some of the forms of thinking I talked about above but also as "criminal as sub-human other (not decent folks like me and mine)", but I guess it's a convenient underscoring of the idea that some people approach society very, very differently.
- saltyhitler 8y ago
  It's actually very humane if you think about it. It's pragmatic at the core but still retains the humanity that you say. I believe you're saying it's inhumane because we kill, but if killing 1 person improves the lives of millions, is it still inhumane? Where do you draw the line? What if we help these people you consider "sub-human" to the best of our abilities? Let's say, you get 100 tries to be "human"? Isn't that a good limit to prove themselves based on their contribution in society? What if they don't? Should we just say, "ok, this person didn't do well, let's just leave them be and support them till they die".