4 ms·
Counterpoint question to most of the comments I’m seeing here: Who then is supposed to pay for a criminal’s stay in prison? Law-abiding tax-payers? Laws that
by camdenlock 4y ago
Counterpoint question to most of the comments I’m seeing here:
Who then is supposed to pay for a criminal’s stay in prison? Law-abiding tax-payers?
Laws that SEND people to prison (like drug possession laws) can be fairly painted as ridiculous, but when it comes to paying for the actual prison infrastructure… it seems a lot less ethically clear.
- otikik 4y agoAbsolutely yes. It’s a shared cost just like road maintenance or sewer systems.
- quesera 4y ago> Who then is supposed to pay for a criminal’s stay in prison? Law-abiding tax-payers? Absolutely yes. If society is improved by the removal of these individuals from free association therein, and the decision is made to do so, then society should be responsible for the costs necessary to make it happen. Cost of enforcement should be a limiting factor on the expansion of laws. If nothing else, it is a proxy for the number of people criminalized, which is a measure of social acceptability (and/or lack of negative impact) of the behaviour itself.
- rendall 4y agoOh, no, it is extremely clear, ethically. Charging someone $249 per day for years is literally extortionate. Even a short sentence can destroy someone's opportunities for life.
- hef19898 4y agoIf society decides to, temporarily or for ever, lock some members away (in democracies that happens yhrough laws and courts), well, yes then society has to pay for it. And those locked away have to be treated fairly and humane. Just because someone is in jail doesn't make that person less human.
- Ekaros 4y agoIf you want to jail or inprison someone I think it is entirely reasonable to pay for it too. Else just fine them, or kill them on the spot.