The underlying assumption of the incapacitation argument is that people can't change. Which evidently is wrong as other countries achieve much lower recidivism

The underlying assumption of the incapacitation argument is that people can't change. Which evidently is wrong as other countries achieve much lower recidivism rates. This essentially moral assumption (that people are inherently good/evil) is shared with the punitive approach. If a country actually wants to lower crime, bank robbers and muggings, the empirical evidence clearly points in one direction: A focus on rehabilitation, and in the long run lowering of inequality through wealth redistribution. The latter isn't really plausible at first glance, but has been a stable observation for decades. Example source: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26In...