11–20 of 83 posts
If people were actually worried about inmate mental health we would do away with incarceration. Being held against your will doesn’t exactly do wonders for you - and the consequences don’t end when you’re released. Sure, we have to “draw the line”, but isn’t that arbitrary?
Archive link to the story the author is talking about https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065420/http://maneatingr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, we have to “draw the line”, but isn’t that arbitrary? Perhaps, insofar as it's arbitrary to be more concerned about the well-being of victims than perpetrators. Personally, I have arbitrarily decided to care more about potential murder victims than convicted murderers, potential rape victims than convicted rapists, property owners than convicted thieves, and so on.
> Perhaps, insofar as it's arbitrary to be more concerned about the well-being of victims than perpetrators. I’d argue that our current system isn’t really interested in the well being of victims either. Or rather, it’s only interested with the victims when the victims express specific opinions. The actual relationship between crime, survivors, retribution, and forgiveness is an extremely complex matter. Consider the…
If people were actually worried about inmate mental health we would do away with incarceration. Being held against your will doesn’t exactly do wonders for you - and the consequences don’t end when you’re released. Sure, we have to “draw the line”, but isn’t that arbitrary?
This may be one of my spicier opinions but I think we should have caning for some crimes. Fines and incarceration both have collateral damage, if the person punished is responsible for anyone. Fines are regressive. Incarceration has a host of well known problems. But, unfortunately, a sufficiently dangerous person does need to be physically put away. Being held against your will may well do wonders for people you thr…
If you cane someone who was brought up with violence, it can reinforce the idea that only the strongest wins. On the other hand, trying to be nice to them won't work if they want the $100K they make from drug dealing.
The sad fact is that nothing works perfectly, but at least we can strive to make it consistent, which is probably the biggest problem in most penal systems.
Archive link to the story the author is talking about https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065420/http://maneatingr...
!! A masterclass in techno-utopian quasi-messianic nonsense.
Real life problems aren’t like that.
If people were actually worried about inmate mental health we would do away with incarceration. Being held against your will doesn’t exactly do wonders for you - and the consequences don’t end when you’re released. Sure, we have to “draw the line”, but isn’t that arbitrary?
No, it is simple prioritization — that sort of absolutism is a fallacy. We are worried about 'inmate mental health' AFTER we are worried about preventing said inmate from further damaging the health, wealth, or life of others. If someone is a threat to anyone in my family, friends, society, IDGAF about their mental health until that threat is neutralized.
If you have a better way to neutralize the threat from people who decide it is ok to damage, steal, harm, rape, kill, or otherwise violate other people, let us know. Otherwise, cut the fallacies.
I mean, I'm with Snow here. I think the response is a bit poor in that "well, we don't know that this is safe, so this proposal is obviously crazy and does no one any good." Maybe we could find out if it's safe? It doesn't seem obvious to me that it's a bad idea.
What happens when a rowdy prisoner breaks the VR headset and is suddenly trapped alone in a box for 10 years. What state do you think he’ll be in when he’s let out? Ridiculous idea
edit: and I mean, they could still use voicechat in the meanwhile, you can build that in the wall so it's pretty hard to break