Why would you not choose this over what prison is currently like?
This is like asking whether people would prefer home confinement to being in a prison cell
This is like asking whether people would prefer home confinement to being in a prison cell
The limiting case for this is the Matrix or Metaverse, where everybody voluntarily confines themselves to their home and interacts with each other only according to the rules of the governing software. No possibility for crime because there are no unmediated interactions, and the state has total control.
While I certainly sympathize with the aspect of reform for prison, it seems unpalatable to me to not punish, say, someone who rapes a child or with complete disrespect for the law and other people and breaks into homes or smashes car windows to basically be told to hang out and watch TV and “reform” at home with pamphlets or asinine internet courses from a state-provided computer.
Parole, probation, house arrest, etc. are tools we have to provide more leniency at the discretion of a judge as appropriate. And there are different levels of prisons to be considered here as well. Rehab can occur while in prison too.
But in addition to reforming prisons, we need to solve the problem at its core. Why do people do things that land them in prison in the first place? This is where healthcare, education, and other projects can stop the problem before it starts.
Criminals who are deranged, either in the sense of committing especially heinous crimes (e.g. child rape) or in the sense of repeatedly committing serious crimes without evidence that they are able to reform should be humanely executed the same way we put down problematic animals.
For the "deranged", I prefer imprisonment for at least two reasons:
1. They may have friends/relatives who would be harmed by them no longer existing. Why punish them?
2. Death is too easy an 'out'. If I had no other tether to society, then choosing a peaceful sleep vs a daily reminder of my actions is an easy choice; put me to sleep.
Especially since you seem to advocate flogging, which is a form of torture.
And advocate executions, which grants the government ultinate tyranical power over a citizen.
And when a mistake is made, and the innocent is executed, this mistake can never be corrected.
Such mistakes are quite conmon, as apparently in America police will lie in counrt, claim that their dog can smell a body that was in a particular location years ago, but now cannot be found and jurors will convict based on testimony of a dog.
I think corporal punishment is vastly more humane and prefer it largely for humanitarian reasons. If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea?
There needs to be some deterrent, but taking years from a person's life, and forcing them to live in squalid conditions and in close proximity to violent criminals, is not a humane deterrent, it is not an effective deterrent (as evidenced by recidivism rates), and it is not an effective deterrent in terms of either dollars or time.
Flogging, by contrast, can be executed quickly and cheaply, and, while the injury might stay with you for weeks, doesn't take a large quantity of your life. Flogging is also visually impressive and likely to be something that most people want to avoid. Flogging has a long history of use as a punishment too - suggesting it would have a useful deterrent effect.
Regarding execution - no mistakes can ever be corrected. If you send a person to prison and they commit suicide, die of disease, or are killed by another inmate, all of which are vastly more common in prison than in the general population, you can't undo your mistake should you discover that the person sentenced was wrongfully convicted. Likewise, even if you sentence someone for five years, discover after two it was a mistake, they do not get their life back. Does this mean we should never imprison people?
It's fine to say there should be a higher bar of proof required for execution, but the finality of the sentence is not a reason not to employ it. There are people who have committed heinous crimes caught on video, attested to by witnesses, placed at the scene by evidence, and who have confessed their own guilt, and who have no plausible defense. In such a scenario why should we stay punishment out of a paranoia that maybe, despite all evidence, we might be wrong and might one day want to release this horrible criminal back to the general population?
We are torturing prisoners in several ways, from solitary confinement to physical deprivation. People do routinely propose that we stop, and they do get asked for evidence that their proposal would be better. Your idea is one that we have evidence against because, as you mention, it has a long history. (And that is not actually evidence that it works: otherwise we'd just use witchcraft.)
If you followed that logic out, what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?
I think the system needs to change but that change needs to be with clear goals and with evidence that those goals can be, and are being, met. That’s why I’d propose looking at models that reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of inmates.
That’s what makes me better than a murderer or violent criminal.
(I'm not saying that isolation is never necessary. But it should be clearly separated from punishment.)
Strong disagree.
As many of us found out during Covid (depending on your country), being restricted from seeing loved ones and not being allowed to leave your house is absolutely punishment. House Arrest is much preferable to actual prison, but is still absolutely punishment. I went to a boarding school, and the strongest punishment you'd get before suspension/expulsion was "gating" - you had to stay in your room except for lessons and meals, and you had to report in to a teacher very regularly. It was a strong deterrent, 'cuz it sucked.
In almost any case where society is mad at someone, rather than scared of someone (re-offending), House Arrest would be cheaper, more humane, but still absolutely a punishment.
Because there would be no upper limit to the number of people you can imprison - limited space in prisons provides vital societal back-pressure on which crimes are considered serious enough for custodial sentences.
In general, the inefficiencies in the justice system are good because they force prioritization. What would be the impact on society if crime detection, deliberation and rulings were all automated?
Well, I can easily one-up this. The Agricultural Revolution was a mistake. We should have remained hunter gatherers.
(Lots of people believe this, or claim to)