2 ms·
Well, two reasons: - It seems to break the rule of punishment matching the crime. I wouldn't say violent criminals "deserve" to be locked in with other violent
by sliverstorm 13y ago
Well, two reasons:
- It seems to break the rule of punishment matching the crime. I wouldn't say violent criminals "deserve" to be locked in with other violent criminals & get stabbed, but at least the violent ones might be better able to fend for themselves.
- Violent criminals require more security, so if we separate the violent & nonviolent criminals it will be cheaper for the US taxpayer
- vacri 13y agoA jail cell is to hold arrestees, not to punish them. I'm also finding it weird that in your 'punishment matching the crime' scenario, a burglar who makes off with your TV is treated worse than a pension fund raider who causes a string of suicides. Or even a more run-of-the-mill embezzler who 'only' makes off with 100k.
- sliverstorm 13y agoIf burglary is considered a violent crime, I may need to rework my comments. As for jail v. prison, my apologies. I know the distinction, but so few people make the distinction in their use of the two words I usually ignore the difference.
- arsenerei 13y agoHmm, alright. To your first point, the ultimate conclusion to that idea would be a graded prison, where criminals of like-violence are kept together so everyone has the same likelihood of fending themselves, because I can imagine there are those that are charged with assault being significantly less violent than murderers. I wonder if that would also further lessen the cost for your second point. Edit: And thanks for your response.