*for non-violent stuff, like drugs, obviously you can. I'm referring to this specific example, which is described as violent. Non-violence shouldn't impact your future in the same way.
*for non-violent stuff, like drugs, obviously you can. I'm referring to this specific example, which is described as violent. Non-violence shouldn't impact your future in the same way.
Do you imagine the victim of a violent crime wants to see the offender crushed by society to such an extent that they offend again? Do you imagine the victim wants the offender's children to suffer as well? How many generations of pain and suffering should be imposed? How many more victims will that spawn? How much misery should we be willing to impose and on how many people?
We can either admit that prison sentences aren't actually meant to rehabilitate criminals and they exist solely as a way of inflicting punishment (as you imply), or we can take the folks coming out the back end of that system and give them opportunities to rejoin society as a productive citizen. The attitude of "you made a bad choice, therefore you're no longer worthy of opportunity" is exactly why the United States has the highest imprisonment rates in the world: when folks come out of prison and have every door to rebuilding their life shut, what do you expect is going to happen? That they move away to become a monk in a cave somewhere?
It's funny to me to see HN comments so strongly opposed to "cancel culture" but then as soon as someone talks about folks being released from prison, it's "If after that time you find it to get a job, well, you kinda have to wear that."
If the empathy-allocating thing appeals to you, you can think about it in terms of externalities. If you can prevent recidivism, you can proactively "help the victims" by preventing their victimization in the first place. What drives recidivism? Primarily, poverty, unemployment, social marginalization, untreated mental health issues. People with no options will act as if they don't have options.