3 ms·
I think your underlying premise (of the gp too) is flawed because it seems to imply that we need to contain people in order to save money. I don't think that is
by birdyrooster 6y ago
I think your underlying premise (of the gp too) is flawed because it seems to imply that we need to contain people in order to save money. I don't think that is a reasonable standard for reworking our prison and penal systems.
- kyrra 6y agoSociety overall needs a punishment/rehab system for people that do things that go against the rules of society. Prisons are the system we have right now. Maybe we need to experiment with other ideas?
- birdyrooster 6y agoI am just saying that rehabilitation should be the focus not the monetary cost-benefit. The latter seems to cause politicians to prioritize private prisons to "save money" while causing tons of damage in second order effects that aren't always $$$.
- kyrra 6y agoRehabilitation seems to me to be the most economical solution. While there may be a higher up front cost, if we can be more successful on that path than just locking someone up, the productivity that person adds to society will be earned back. So I argue that it is a cost benefit analysis, you just have to look in the long term.
- sokoloff 6y agoThere are self-evidently some people (clearly at least 2, pretty surely thousands, not likely a million in the US) who have proven themselves unfit to live freely in society. Society has to address the topic somehow. For me, it’s not about saving money but there’s also obviously some limit to how much resources society will devote to the topic if an equally effective but much cheaper method is available. “We’re going to raise your taxes so we can treat prisoners better!” has not been tried as a campaign slogan to my knowledge, but it would poll pretty poorly I’d think.