In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
Marooning would of course be a last resort; it would happen only after efforts to rehabilitate someone were fruitless for a few years, or long enough to confidently conclude that someone is permanently damaged beyond societal reintegration.
This circles the question of "how much are you going to invest into someone to reform them". Scandinavian-style prisons sound great but it takes a lot of work to operate them. If you needed 2 full-time-working-equivalents to reform 1 prisoner, would you say that is worth it? If you needed 2:1 but didn't have the certainty that you'd succeed, is that worth it?
The prison linked above has a 1.7-to-1 prisoner-to-guard ratio; the ratio in U.S. state prisons is about 4.9-to-1. But note that this doesn't necessarily mean more total guards. If you reduce recidivism (as that prison appears to do) you reduce total prisoners and thus total guards, and so you might see an overall reduction in the guard total even with more guards per prisoner. You could further reduce the total guards needed by legalizing drugs and decriminalizing homelessness, among other policy changes.
If we're really talking about "last resort" options, than the answer is "a lot." It's not really the last resort if you give up too easily. And we're not particularly close to real resource constraints on rehabilitation efforts; the question is solely whether we want to make those efforts or not.
That's a good point. And I wasn't suggesting that we give up easily, only that there might still be a point where it wouldn't be worth it. Of course there would still be an option to return, but I suppose the marooning option would only be used for people who were resolutely opposed to adhering to the reciprocal foundations of society.
These people exist, and it's good to consider how any hypothetical justice system would handle them.
I think the real lib take is thinking that a 2:1 staffing ratio is prohibitively/impossibly expensive. We already have huge amounts of labor that is currently unutilised or utilised in highly inefficient industries which could be deployed for this use.
In Australia, a staffing ratio of 2:1 for people with disability is not unheard of.
Another factor that would be important to consider is a necessary reduction in the number of criminal offences - even neoliberal economic analyses suggest that it's never useful to lock up drug users and rarely useful to lock up car thiefs (unless they're out stealing expensive new cars, which is rare).
I’m kinda curious what “rehabilitate” means.
Outside of periods of extreme social instability most heinous crimes of ones of passion committed by individuals who aren’t really inherently dysfunctional and probably would ever commit the act and continue a normal life again had they never been caught. Idk what a good punishment for those people are.
To be honest, I'm curious what "rehabilitation" is going to mean in a post-revolutionary context as well.
I don't have all the answers.
Hi curious what "rehabilitation" is going to mean in a post-revolutionary context as well, I'm dad!
I'm and welcome to a fresh new episode of Guess What Asshole Made This Useless Piece Of Code, your host and subject material for this episode is me
Hi kinda curious what "rehabilitate" means, I'm dad!