> they would rather crime and criminal behavior not be punished at all. If it's possible to do so and sufficiently discourage crime up front, still reduce reci

> they would rather crime and criminal behavior not be punished at all. If it's possible to do so and sufficiently discourage crime up front, still reduce recidivism, and keep society from harm, then yes, absolutely. Being the real world and lacking such a perfect solution doesn't mean that can't still be the direction we aim in. The goal is maximizing net benefit to society. There's absolutely some amount of benefit to the satisfaction the punitive approach can have for those harmed, there's definitely benefit to getting people to choose to not commit crimes due to consequences (but with diminishing returns), and there's absolutely benefit to keeping actively dangerous individuals separate from society. However, when we make prisons so bad that people come out as dangerous or more dangerous than they went in, has society actually benefitted on the balance? Are we, collectively, better off because one murderer was made utterly miserable for 15 years who is just as likely to murder again than we are if that same murderer was made moderately inconvenienced for 10 years, but is less likely to murder again?