3 ms·
>“We could be keeping them and be giving services while they’re in jail,” says Fabbri. “It could really be effective. >we’re not solving our problems when we p
by Causality1 7y ago
>“We could be keeping them and be giving services while they’re in jail,” says Fabbri. “It could really be effective.
>we’re not solving our problems when we pretend low-level crimes aren’t important.
Those two facts are the crux of the issue. Prisons do not rehabilitate criminals; they just restrain them. Couple that with the fact it costs, on nationwide average, $84 per day to incarcerate someone and the average petty criminal steals less than $84/day and you end up with an uncomfortable conclusion. That conclusion is that it would be cheaper to offer government-funded total coverage crime insurance than it is to arrest the criminals.
- fche 7y agoA daily theft of $84 per day has much more than $84/day of cost in terms of corrosion of social trust. A government payout cannot fix that - heck it makes it worse.
- lostlogin 7y agoDoesn’t that strengthen causality1’s argument? You could give the their their $84 and it would be a straight win if they stopped thieving.
- fche 7y agoThat is a big "if", of course. And I thought the initial idea was to have the gov't pay the losses of the victims of thefts, without incarcerating the thieves. As though that would eliminate the victimization.
- DrScump 7y agoFor a property thief to net $84 would require taking $400+ worth of property and creating as much worth of damage in the process.
- MaxfordAndSons 7y ago> Prisons do not rehabilitate criminals; they just restrain them. I think it's worth pointing out that, while that's certainly true of most if not all of the US prison system, it's not necessarily the case that incarceration is never rehabilitative.
- lostlogin 7y agoI read the OP as saying ‘retrain’. Both work