4 ms·
The point of limiting people's freedom of movement is to prevent them from being a danger to others (what's sometimes called 'incapacitation'). It's pretty muc
by zozbot234 3y ago
The point of limiting people's freedom of movement is to prevent them from being a danger to others (what's sometimes called 'incapacitation'). It's pretty much the same logic as what used to be called "shelter in place", except a lot more extreme because the level of risk is correspondingly higher. Of course once you're going to keep prisoners, it makes sense to try and offer them some kind of rehabilitation. The punishment, deterrence and retaliation aspect is not totally absent but is pretty much incidental; prison is never going to be somewhere people want to be, regardless of whether we happen to think of it as some sort of punishment.
- gjsman-1000 3y agoI think that’s where our world views vary. If you kill 20 people with a car into a parade, you have no chance at rehabilitation. Punishment is perfectly acceptable - especially when it is hardly brutal, we aren’t even sending the perp to an oil rig. The sooner we stop playing games about prisons being rehab facilities, the better. I have yet to hear a successful prison rehab story, and the statistics show that doesn’t work. When punishment is the focus - look at the 80s crime wave. It worked. I think it’s because I know that there is no way, whatsoever, to build a society without prisons, because there will always be crime.
- zozbot234 3y agoThe relevant question is how many people exist who would have likewise killed 20 people, but didn't because the prospect of rotting in a "punishment" focused prison scared them straight. I'm not saying that such people don't exist, I just think they're a whole lot rarer than the alternative, i.e. those who can be meaningfully rehabilitated and induced to not reoffend.