3 ms·

What is the alternative? Corporeal punishment only? No law enforcement? Solitary confinement would also be a rights violation.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Funding corrections systems at an appropriate level where violence is an exception, not the norm. If you can’t afford to do it, you can’t afford to incarcerate. American prisons are about making humans suffer though (vs rehabilitation) as inexpensively as possible, so I don’t see this changing in the near future.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I understand you are making a moral argument, not a physics argument, but it still doesnt seem to be self evident. Dont get me wrong, I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the "corrections" system. Incarceration itself is a loss of rights. Which rights and how much is clearly a gradient, not binary. How much would you personally pay to keep a murderer or rapist off your street before you compromised on their safety? Would you really let them go if you and your family were at risk?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Your argument already breaks down when you ask me personally. The argument is “how much are we willing as a society to keep people we incarcerate safe?” The answer should be “as much as it costs” instead of “that is not my problem.” It is our problem if the incarcerated are not safe when incarcerated, because we are incarcerating them. I pay >$100k/year in federal income tax alone, I am not allergic to paying taxes to buy civilization. I’ll pay more, and I would expect others at my economic strata to do the same. My problem is with the people who argue to lock up “dangerous criminals” and don’t want to pay the true costs. Their danger doesn’t cause them to not be entitled to safety vs violence in imposed captivity.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Would you give up every single thing you have? If that wasn't enough, would you really let them go free? If that's your absolutist moral position, then I think that is consistent with what you said. I don't think most people would agree. I think that tolerable costs are finite. The cost to ensure a reasonable amount of safety may in fact be tolerable, but that is a separate position from the absolutist one. I'm pretty skeptical that someone would sacrifice their entire wealth to de-risk prisons, and I'm naturally skeptical that they would sacrifice the lives of their children before they put a prisoner in a risky position. This is what your rhetorical claims boil down to.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        My rhetorical claims are that we have the necessary wealth to ensure the safety of those we choose to incarcerate. That is objectively true, based on all available evidence, even if you disagree.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I don't disagree with that at all. I thought I was pretty clear that I was taking issue with the absolutist ultimatum: >If you can’t afford to do it, you can’t afford to incarcerate. That is an entirely different position than saying we can easily afford it and should.
atmavatar 2y ago
Putting criminal offenses under a microscope vis a vis their penalties would be a good start. A fair number of offenses should probably carry shorter prison sentences or none at all, having been overly influenced by decades of "war on drugs" and "tough on crime" policies. It is a black mark on our society that the US continues to lead the world in both per capita and absolute prison population.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Funding corrections systems at an appropriate level where violence is an exception, not the norm. If you can’t afford to do it, you can’t afford to incarcerate. American prisons are about making humans suffer though (vs rehabilitation) as inexpensively as possible, so I don’t see this changing in the near future.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I understand you are making a moral argument, not a physics argument, but it still doesnt seem to be self evident. Dont get me wrong, I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the "corrections" system. Incarceration itself is a loss of rights. Which rights and how much is clearly a gradient, not binary. How much would you personally pay to keep a murderer or rapist off your street before you compromised on their safety? Would you really let them go if you and your family were at risk?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Your argument already breaks down when you ask me personally. The argument is “how much are we willing as a society to keep people we incarcerate safe?” The answer should be “as much as it costs” instead of “that is not my problem.” It is our problem if the incarcerated are not safe when incarcerated, because we are incarcerating them. I pay >$100k/year in federal income tax alone, I am not allergic to paying taxes to buy civilization. I’ll pay more, and I would expect others at my economic strata to do the same. My problem is with the people who argue to lock up “dangerous criminals” and don’t want to pay the true costs. Their danger doesn’t cause them to not be entitled to safety vs violence in imposed captivity.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Would you give up every single thing you have? If that wasn't enough, would you really let them go free? If that's your absolutist moral position, then I think that is consistent with what you said. I don't think most people would agree. I think that tolerable costs are finite. The cost to ensure a reasonable amount of safety may in fact be tolerable, but that is a separate position from the absolutist one. I'm pretty skeptical that someone would sacrifice their entire wealth to de-risk prisons, and I'm naturally skeptical that they would sacrifice the lives of their children before they put a prisoner in a risky position. This is what your rhetorical claims boil down to.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      My rhetorical claims are that we have the necessary wealth to ensure the safety of those we choose to incarcerate. That is objectively true, based on all available evidence, even if you disagree.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I don't disagree with that at all. I thought I was pretty clear that I was taking issue with the absolutist ultimatum: >If you can’t afford to do it, you can’t afford to incarcerate. That is an entirely different position than saying we can easily afford it and should.

atmavatar 2y ago

Putting criminal offenses under a microscope vis a vis their penalties would be a good start. A fair number of offenses should probably carry shorter prison sentences or none at all, having been overly influenced by decades of "war on drugs" and "tough on crime" policies. It is a black mark on our society that the US continues to lead the world in both per capita and absolute prison population.