3 ms·

We've built lots and lots of prisons. The USA has more incarcerated people per capita than anywhere else on the planet. Certainly we still have problems with v

We've built lots and lots of prisons. The USA has more incarcerated people per capita than anywhere else on the planet. Certainly we still have problems with violence and other kinds of harm done by people to people. If you think building more prisons will solve these problems (which are probably various and not uniform or monolithic), when we already incarcerate more people than literally anywhere else on the planet, I think the burden of proof is on you to show that building more prisons will somehow help. It doesn't seem obvious to me. As you say, building more prisons does not seem to me to be an intervention likely to help, as demonstrated by our experience so far.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
We've currently got minor criminals in maximum security because there's a lack of low-level capacity. Simply building enough minimum security cells for the minor criminals already in the system would be more appropriate treatment, would aid rehabiliation, and would reduce overcrowding of actually dangerous prisoners. Further, the cost of incarceration scales with the security required, this would save money. In addition, there'd now be a reasonable punishment for small crimes and we could start punishing people who now fall through the cracks before they become a problem. > I think the burden of proof is on you to show that building more prisons will somehow help. You're not using them correctly. Stop breaking the system by putting mental patients and minor criminals in prisons. Stop overcrowding, underfunding, letting sadists be guards, etc, etc, and then see if they work. Besides, I'm not saying more, I'm saying new and appropriate ones. You can repurpose the old ones once prisoners are transferred. This is why people are more against minimum-security prisons than maximum; minimum security prisons are an easy and obvious win and it hurts the "all prisons bad" narrative by showing the options aren't just gulags or nothing.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

We've currently got minor criminals in maximum security because there's a lack of low-level capacity. Simply building enough minimum security cells for the minor criminals already in the system would be more appropriate treatment, would aid rehabiliation, and would reduce overcrowding of actually dangerous prisoners. Further, the cost of incarceration scales with the security required, this would save money. In addition, there'd now be a reasonable punishment for small crimes and we could start punishing people who now fall through the cracks before they become a problem. > I think the burden of proof is on you to show that building more prisons will somehow help. You're not using them correctly. Stop breaking the system by putting mental patients and minor criminals in prisons. Stop overcrowding, underfunding, letting sadists be guards, etc, etc, and then see if they work. Besides, I'm not saying more, I'm saying new and appropriate ones. You can repurpose the old ones once prisoners are transferred. This is why people are more against minimum-security prisons than maximum; minimum security prisons are an easy and obvious win and it hurts the "all prisons bad" narrative by showing the options aren't just gulags or nothing.