4 ms·
So basically: imprison more people -> cost goes up -> crime does not go down -> imprison more people -> cost goes up -> crime does not go down -> imprison more
by franze 6y ago
So basically: imprison more people -> cost goes up -> crime does not go down -> imprison more people -> cost goes up -> crime does not go down -> imprison more people ->....
Does not sound too clever in my book.
Maybe time to try something else?
- Kiro 6y agoWhat are the alternatives? For me, punishing criminals is more important than rehabilitating them.
- bryal 6y agoI think the goal should be to prevent crime.
- geowwy 6y agoThere are lots of alternatives. Prison was not that common until recently.
- elil17 6y agoWhy is punishing people more important than preventing recidivism?
- Kiro 6y agoI want criminals to be punished for their crimes. That's justice for me. Can't explain why I feel that way but I do.
- solstice 6y agoI (and I suspect victims of crime) sympathise with this POV. However, I'd encourage you to also think about it from a larger perspective, like a government: what would be the most advantageous path for a society to take in dealing with crime? If you take such a larger perspective you'll see that individual justice is only one of several important factors. I don't have time to explain further. But one analogy could that nobody likes to pay taxes themselves, but many accept that taxes in general (if well-spent) can be a net positive for a society/country.
- elil17 6y agoExactly. It’s hard to feel emotionally that prison abolition is right in the face of an individual case. You want justice! But if you look at the system as a whole you have to conclude that, on average, justice isn’t really being served. The tax burden is unjust to the tax payer. Poor conditions and long sentences are unjust to incarcerated people. Strange sentencing rules and prosecutory practices (people can get more time for petty theft than rape) are unjust to people who want justice.