4 ms·

This is an absolutely bizarre take. Even if you’re all for the pure punitive aspect of it, why would you not want to improve society and the economics? Are you

This is an absolutely bizarre take. Even if you’re all for the pure punitive aspect of it, why would you not want to improve society and the economics? Are you Kim Jong Un or something? I’m genuinely confused how any reasonable argument can be made here, regardless on your stance towards the prisoners themselves.

jghn 3y ago
They didn’t say they support the status quo.
- SteveNuts 3y ago
  Then they should elaborate on their point because their comment sounds like they do.
  - jghn 3y ago
    I interpreted it as snarking on the current state of affairs. By and large, in the US the point of the prison system is *not* rehabilitation or providing benefit to society. It's about lining the pockets of wealthy people and keeping the downtrodden in that position. And that sucks, but stating it as a matter of fact doesn't mean one supports it.
    - SteveNuts 3y ago
      That's definitely how I interpreted it also, but the comment definitely buries the lede at least
kayodelycaon 3y ago
The US is really big on making sure criminals never stop paying for their crimes. Improving society in a way that helps anyone who hasn’t earned it is contrary to the goals way too many voters.
MPSimmons 3y ago
I'm hoping the comment you're replying to was sardonic.
slibhb 3y ago
If you're a retributivist, you believe the point of prison is to punish the guilty. Therefore you will be uncomfortable with the idea of prison as a means to "improve society or economics". Kant: > [Punishment] can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society. It must always be inflicted upon him only because he has committed a crime. For a human being can never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another or be put among the objects of rights to things
- LadyCailin 3y ago
  But if I’m a retributivist, why do I want to be less efficient with money and also make MY life worse, just to inflict more punishment on some prisoner? That just genuinely makes no sense. I can understand the logic of wanting to punish them for the sake of it, but I would also want to be efficient about it, and not make my life worse in the process.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    You don't want to be "less efficient with money" or "make your life worse". Factors like that don't come into it. Neither does "making society better," "reforming the guilty party," or deterrence. And "inflicting more punishment" isn't the goal either -- that's just cruelty. The basic point is simple. If a person commits a crime, they should be punished in proportion to the crime. Full stop. Within that simple framework, efficiency is fine, but it shouldn't be the goal.
- immibis 3y ago
  And the country we're talking about is run by retributivists, and even further, whatever that is called - people who just want to see other people punished.

jghn 3y ago

They didn’t say they support the status quo.

SteveNuts 3y ago
Then they should elaborate on their point because their comment sounds like they do.
- jghn 3y ago
  I interpreted it as snarking on the current state of affairs. By and large, in the US the point of the prison system is *not* rehabilitation or providing benefit to society. It's about lining the pockets of wealthy people and keeping the downtrodden in that position. And that sucks, but stating it as a matter of fact doesn't mean one supports it.
  - SteveNuts 3y ago
    That's definitely how I interpreted it also, but the comment definitely buries the lede at least

kayodelycaon 3y ago

The US is really big on making sure criminals never stop paying for their crimes. Improving society in a way that helps anyone who hasn’t earned it is contrary to the goals way too many voters.

MPSimmons 3y ago

I'm hoping the comment you're replying to was sardonic.

slibhb 3y ago

If you're a retributivist, you believe the point of prison is to punish the guilty. Therefore you will be uncomfortable with the idea of prison as a means to "improve society or economics". Kant: > [Punishment] can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society. It must always be inflicted upon him only because he has committed a crime. For a human being can never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another or be put among the objects of rights to things

LadyCailin 3y ago
But if I’m a retributivist, why do I want to be less efficient with money and also make MY life worse, just to inflict more punishment on some prisoner? That just genuinely makes no sense. I can understand the logic of wanting to punish them for the sake of it, but I would also want to be efficient about it, and not make my life worse in the process.
- slibhb 3y ago
  You don't want to be "less efficient with money" or "make your life worse". Factors like that don't come into it. Neither does "making society better," "reforming the guilty party," or deterrence. And "inflicting more punishment" isn't the goal either -- that's just cruelty. The basic point is simple. If a person commits a crime, they should be punished in proportion to the crime. Full stop. Within that simple framework, efficiency is fine, but it shouldn't be the goal.
immibis 3y ago
And the country we're talking about is run by retributivists, and even further, whatever that is called - people who just want to see other people punished.