3 ms·

I think in your example it is more likely that infrastructure was really expensive back in the day. It was expensive to build dungeons. And often only prominent

by xkcd1963 4y ago

I think in your example it is more likely that infrastructure was really expensive back in the day. It was expensive to build dungeons. And often only prominent prisoners were locked up

ghaff 4y ago
That is almost certainly true. People were fined, put in stocks, had body parts cut off--or executed. Yes, they'd probably be shocked at how many people are imprisoned today but likely mostly because they'd consider it a very inefficient use of resources given the much cheaper ways to punish people.
- Xeoncross 4y ago
  > a very inefficient use of resources I wish we would consider prison a very inefficient use of resources. We put non-violent people in prison and fine the tax payers. It's a lose-lose for both parties.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    People found guilty are routinely fined as well. Perhaps even fewer people guilty of non-violent crimes should be put in prison as opposed to just being given house arrest or community service. (As many are today.) Though I suspect that a lot of people would see that as leniency for what are often "white collar" criminals.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    The extent to which this is true is often exaggerated. Violent criminals are the largest share of the state prison population [0], followed by serious property crimes, such as theft and burglary. The modal state prisoner is a violent repeat offender who is overwhelming likely to re-offend upon release. Even once you get down to the "drugs" and "public order" categories, quite a large share of these guys have plead down from more serious charges of which they're almost certainly guilty, and those who really are in for "drugs" are not guilty of mere possession (they're dealers, distributors, etc). Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html [0] Local jails are full mostly of people awaiting trial. That's a whole separate conversation. Federal prisons, too, are best thought of as a different topic, since the federal authorities are in pursuit of a particular set of criminals and the population skews heavily toward offenders who aren't representative of the broader prison population.
    - swatcoder 4y ago
      You take a source that only indicates about 750,000 of 2M detained people have been convicted of violent crime, then toss in property crime because you think that’s equally justified too, then volunteer an unsubstantiated dismissal of the remainder as “plead down”. I mean, it’s cool that you included a foot note and a link here, since it makes it looks like you cited something, but the substance of your comment isn’t really informed by it, so it feels a little disingenuous.
      - dionidium 4y ago
        > You take a source that only indicates about 750,000 of 2M detained people have been convicted of violent crime I anticipated this objection and addressed it explicitly in the footnote. You might not find my argument persuasive; that's fine, but I directly engaged with this response already.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    At least some types of non-violent criminals belong behind the bars, I would say. A very specific example are the fraudsters. Bernie Madoff type. There is something almost devilish about their combination of persuasion, charisma and utter disregard for consequences. And they tend to run new frauds if they have a possibility to do so, so it isn't very safe to let them walk.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Why should only non-violent criminals be shielded from the consequences of their actions? Non-violent criminals are often responsible for multiple orders of magnitude more damage than violent ones. The guy who stole my house shouldn't be less punished than the guy who slapped me. It makes sense under the theory that we put people in prison to protect the public, but when we put dangerous, violent people in prison, we make them far more dangerous and violent, then let them out of prison largely unemployable and with no means of support. That's generally funny to us; we feel that it's even more punishment, and more punishment is good. Drug people shouldn't be in prison because taking drugs shouldn't be a crime, not because it is a non-violent one.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Or exiled. That was incredibly common, and not so rarely effectively a death sentence.
int_19h 4y ago
Prisons were and still are expensive, but nobody went around saying "if only we could", either. The justice system then was explicitly retributive, with deterrence as a secondary goal, and rehabilitation as a distant third. So why even bother locking people up, when there are many other forms of punishment of various severity that don't take years to implement?

I think in your example it is more likely that infrastructure was really expensive back in the day. It was expensive to build dungeons. And often only prominent prisoners were locked up

ghaff 4y ago

That is almost certainly true. People were fined, put in stocks, had body parts cut off--or executed. Yes, they'd probably be shocked at how many people are imprisoned today but likely mostly because they'd consider it a very inefficient use of resources given the much cheaper ways to punish people.

Xeoncross 4y ago
> a very inefficient use of resources I wish we would consider prison a very inefficient use of resources. We put non-violent people in prison and fine the tax payers. It's a lose-lose for both parties.
- ghaff 4y ago
  People found guilty are routinely fined as well. Perhaps even fewer people guilty of non-violent crimes should be put in prison as opposed to just being given house arrest or community service. (As many are today.) Though I suspect that a lot of people would see that as leniency for what are often "white collar" criminals.
- dionidium 4y ago
  The extent to which this is true is often exaggerated. Violent criminals are the largest share of the state prison population [0], followed by serious property crimes, such as theft and burglary. The modal state prisoner is a violent repeat offender who is overwhelming likely to re-offend upon release. Even once you get down to the "drugs" and "public order" categories, quite a large share of these guys have plead down from more serious charges of which they're almost certainly guilty, and those who really are in for "drugs" are not guilty of mere possession (they're dealers, distributors, etc). Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html [0] Local jails are full mostly of people awaiting trial. That's a whole separate conversation. Federal prisons, too, are best thought of as a different topic, since the federal authorities are in pursuit of a particular set of criminals and the population skews heavily toward offenders who aren't representative of the broader prison population.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    You take a source that only indicates about 750,000 of 2M detained people have been convicted of violent crime, then toss in property crime because you think that’s equally justified too, then volunteer an unsubstantiated dismissal of the remainder as “plead down”. I mean, it’s cool that you included a foot note and a link here, since it makes it looks like you cited something, but the substance of your comment isn’t really informed by it, so it feels a little disingenuous.
    - dionidium 4y ago
      > You take a source that only indicates about 750,000 of 2M detained people have been convicted of violent crime I anticipated this objection and addressed it explicitly in the footnote. You might not find my argument persuasive; that's fine, but I directly engaged with this response already.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  At least some types of non-violent criminals belong behind the bars, I would say. A very specific example are the fraudsters. Bernie Madoff type. There is something almost devilish about their combination of persuasion, charisma and utter disregard for consequences. And they tend to run new frauds if they have a possibility to do so, so it isn't very safe to let them walk.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Why should only non-violent criminals be shielded from the consequences of their actions? Non-violent criminals are often responsible for multiple orders of magnitude more damage than violent ones. The guy who stole my house shouldn't be less punished than the guy who slapped me. It makes sense under the theory that we put people in prison to protect the public, but when we put dangerous, violent people in prison, we make them far more dangerous and violent, then let them out of prison largely unemployable and with no means of support. That's generally funny to us; we feel that it's even more punishment, and more punishment is good. Drug people shouldn't be in prison because taking drugs shouldn't be a crime, not because it is a non-violent one.
colechristensen 4y ago
Or exiled. That was incredibly common, and not so rarely effectively a death sentence.

int_19h 4y ago

Prisons were and still are expensive, but nobody went around saying "if only we could", either. The justice system then was explicitly retributive, with deterrence as a secondary goal, and rehabilitation as a distant third. So why even bother locking people up, when there are many other forms of punishment of various severity that don't take years to implement?