5 ms·

Total monetary cost to society isn't the only metric; there is intrinsic value in having a more humane prison system.

mschuster91 5y ago
> there is intrinsic value in having a more humane prison system. Not if you're a believer in "harsh punishment", "law and order!!!", "eye for an eye" and similar Evangelical barbarism like way too many Americans are.
ipaddr 5y ago
Many see prisons as a way of punishment. Providing any comfort will makes some people upset. Society must be educated to the purpose of prison before any of this is possible.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  Prisoners themselves can use the usual sentence "I paid my debt to society" with different meanings. Personally I see great benefits in locking up people guilty of violent crimes, shielding society from the consequences of their actions. Then the system can - as soon as the person is incarcerated - begin to work on rehabilitation.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    I think the Australia model is pretty good (a country for convicts) (take it easy, I'm Australian)
- slibhb 5y ago
  "Society" can't be "educated" because there's simple a disagreement here. Some people indeed see prison as a punishment and others see prison as a means of improving society.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    Indeed, and I suspect that the fundamental factor in how people view prison is based on their personalities. Conservative people are fundamentally more risk averse than Liberal people. “Educate” me all you want about rehabilitation, but when I hear that a man murdered two people with a knife and slashed six others, I’m going to think that man needs to be locked up for life because he’s too much of a risk to innocent people. Conversely, I can lecture a liberal person all day about how dangerous these people can be and they’ll think that these people deserve a chance at being let back into society.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Why not enforce a quick death penalty. Putting someone away for 2, 5, 10, 20 or 30 years and just letting them back into society seems more dangerous compared to trying to change those behaviours before letting them go free.
      - nsonha 5y ago
        Not always the case Also if they are alive they still have a chance to fight if they're wrongly convicted.
    - slibhb 5y ago
      I'd frame it in a different way. Conservatives argue for punishment as deterrence and to keep society safe from criminals. Liberals argue for punishment as rehabilitation and are happy to abandon punishment if it is shown to not rehabilitate. Both of these are utilitarian arguments. A third position is: criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime committed because a society that does not punish criminals is not worth living in. The definition of a crime is a transgression that must be punished, whatever the consequences.
ceejayoz 5y ago
I agree entirely, but the cost arguments are useful for the folks who see improved prisoner well-being as a neutral or even negative aspect.
nsonha 5y ago
no one said cost was a metric, it's a barrier

> there is intrinsic value in having a more humane prison system. Not if you're a believer in "harsh punishment", "law and order!!!", "eye for an eye" and similar Evangelical barbarism like way too many Americans are.

ipaddr 5y ago

Many see prisons as a way of punishment. Providing any comfort will makes some people upset. Society must be educated to the purpose of prison before any of this is possible.

johnchristopher 5y ago
Prisoners themselves can use the usual sentence "I paid my debt to society" with different meanings. Personally I see great benefits in locking up people guilty of violent crimes, shielding society from the consequences of their actions. Then the system can - as soon as the person is incarcerated - begin to work on rehabilitation.
- nsonha 5y ago
  I think the Australia model is pretty good (a country for convicts) (take it easy, I'm Australian)
slibhb 5y ago
"Society" can't be "educated" because there's simple a disagreement here. Some people indeed see prison as a punishment and others see prison as a means of improving society.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  Indeed, and I suspect that the fundamental factor in how people view prison is based on their personalities. Conservative people are fundamentally more risk averse than Liberal people. “Educate” me all you want about rehabilitation, but when I hear that a man murdered two people with a knife and slashed six others, I’m going to think that man needs to be locked up for life because he’s too much of a risk to innocent people. Conversely, I can lecture a liberal person all day about how dangerous these people can be and they’ll think that these people deserve a chance at being let back into society.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Why not enforce a quick death penalty. Putting someone away for 2, 5, 10, 20 or 30 years and just letting them back into society seems more dangerous compared to trying to change those behaviours before letting them go free.
    - nsonha 5y ago
      Not always the case Also if they are alive they still have a chance to fight if they're wrongly convicted.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    I'd frame it in a different way. Conservatives argue for punishment as deterrence and to keep society safe from criminals. Liberals argue for punishment as rehabilitation and are happy to abandon punishment if it is shown to not rehabilitate. Both of these are utilitarian arguments. A third position is: criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime committed because a society that does not punish criminals is not worth living in. The definition of a crime is a transgression that must be punished, whatever the consequences.

ceejayoz 5y ago

I agree entirely, but the cost arguments are useful for the folks who see improved prisoner well-being as a neutral or even negative aspect.

nsonha 5y ago

no one said cost was a metric, it's a barrier