Putting people in prison serves an important function, namely to keep people in society safe both through deterring crime and preventing criminals from committing new crimes.
I'd be open to supporting the right of inmates to choose to go to a "criminals' reservation" as an alternative, since that could save taxpayers a lot of money. But it would be an experiment. If it turned out to significantly reduce the deterrent effect or increase recidivism then it would need to be altered or abandoned as a policy. Also any convict who wants to go to the criminals' reservation instead of prison should be required to be sterilized so we do not subject innocent children to that environment.
The US prison system is on the verge of exploding from a sheer overabundance of prisoners...So something needs to change. It's okay to put people in prison, but prison should be about rehab, not serving a sentence.
For example, the Chinese system is built to rehabilitate, and even though their methods are harsh, their prisons are empty. They work prisoners hard and teach them while they are in prison, and, surprise, surprise, the crime rate is remarkably low in China.
1 United States rate 716
2 Seychelles 709
3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 701
4 U.S. Virgin Islands 539
5 Cuba 510
6 Rwanda 492
Not looking so good...
That is a terrible argument. You can steal a chocolate bar and say you need to live and are using your right to life. You are free to do that. But with every action, there are consequences. You may steal that chocolate bar, but you will have to deal with the consequences.
The title is referring to the political laws of capitalism in which each person has inalienable rights (bubbles) that cannot overlap one another. In other words, anyone can do anything so long as it does not prevent anyone from doing any of those same things.
Murder, for instance is not a right because it overlaps and therefore contradicts the right to exist. Same for theft, it overlaps the right to own property. If someone commits an act that contradicts the rights of others, the social contract between a capitalistic government and each individual calls for that person to be imprisoned. This happens for three reasons. First, it is only justice to make criminals pay for their proven crimes. Second, it keeps such people away from other individuals, further preventing an act of criminality. Third, it is a deterrent of crime, human insight leads a person to seek reward not ultimatum.
People should not be imprisoned for having beliefs contrary to the government, or doing things that do not directly harm others (example: coughing, while it carries disease, does not directly harm others; only in minor, indirect ways does it effect the other individuals.) Only under communism does religious beliefs, political beliefs, and "actions that do not support the public interest" can imprison you.
In short, prison is a civilized way to contain those who directly violate individual rights.
As long as the punishment is fair for the crime and the imprisoned is given due process and a fair trial, than imprisonment is a fair punishment. Obviously imprisonment is not very nice for the prisoners, and sometimes it fails to rehabilitate criminals who go to jail for things like drug use, but if a person deprives other persons of their life, liberty or property than it is the responsibility of the state to punish them somehow and defend the innocent party. Since there is no viable alternative to prison (not currently anyway, maybe someday) for people that murder or rape, I say that prison is an okay solution. For crimes like theft or drug use or juvenile crime some sort of rehabilitation program might be ideal and it may be more ethical, and there are some rehab programs for those who need them. But in the mean time there is no better solution than to keep them in line in jail where they will not hurt anyone. It isn't pretty but it's what we got, if you think it's bad to go there than don't break the law.
Wow, I just felt I had to comment when 67% (be it only 2 people) think imprisonment is wrong. If a person commits a crime against society then he should be punished! Ethically (as rdococ likes to argue) is would be completely WRONG for convicted criminals to effectively be "free", or what is it he argues? Put them in leads? And he accuses clgaram720 of being delusional?
If you commit murder, you deserve NO LIBERTY. Society MUST be protected from you. And the same is applied to all crimes, which HARM the innocents of a society. I just fail to understand... People arguing "No" seem to think there is this amazing other solution, there is not. Sure there is Rehabilitation, but it is still a prison for they lose their liberty. Whether punished or rehabilitated, convicts CANNOT be free and it is completely okay to put people in prison.
For an example, a man kills a family he needs to go in prison for the sake of others. People that commits crimes, should learn to behave well, they need to be put where they can do no harm to anyone. Prison is there to bring safety to our society.
We have to put people in prison. It's our only option.
Let's take the average murderer who commits a non-premeditated murder of his boss because the boss fired him without cause. So we put him in prison. To protect the rest of us from his clear inability to control himself. If you take away prison and death, you're left with two options. The con side suggests a "reservation". There are a number of problems with this idea, notwithstanding finding land on which to house this place, guards to cover the boarders and provisions to be accumulated so the prisoners can begin to provide for themselves. But do we send all prisoners of all types there? Men and Women alike? How do you justify women who embezzled money from their employers sent to live among rapists? If it's not co-ed, how do you justify the punishment fitting the crime when an 18 year old boy steals a car and is murdered as a result of ticking off the wrong person in the reservation? Even if you send our crime of passion murderer, who is unlikely to kill again, does he deserve to be tortured to death by the nut-job sociopath you stuck in there? It's true that people who go to prison are raped and killed, but at least inside a cage there is protection. Ask an inmate. They may not like the guards, but they appreciate it when he takes a shiv away from their enemies.
The other option was to kick criminals out of our own country and give them to someone else. Talk about passing the buck. In what twisted version of morality is it alright to allow a child molester easy access to a four year old because that four year old happens to be Korean? Part of the reason we hunt the worst criminals down even inside other countries is to protect everyone else from our own trash. Imagine the repercussions of handing Ted Bundy of Jeffrey Dahmer to France and saying "He's your problem now!". Well to be fair, the French might just surrender to him, but not before condemning us for dumping our problems on them and imposing sanctions and other economic punishments on the USA. Then Ted Bundy kills some French girls who were innocent, and we have some innocent law-abiding citizens who can't afford to eat as a result. All the wrong people end up suffering because we didn't feel good about putting Teddy in a cage.
Prisons have been around since people first started to realize that some crimes aught not be punished by stoning. It is the lesser of two evils for those members of society who won't abide by the rules set in place to allow us to coexist. And let's not bastardize the Declaration of Independence. We aren't given the natural right to happiness, only the right to PURSUE it within the realms of law so we don't mess up too many other people's lives in the process.
Everyone deserves to be free. It is the only natural right people have. Make a reservation for people that have been condemned and let them live there lives. If other county's want them then let them have them. We have no right to put people in cages for there whole lives.
The other side is missing the point. All that it was saying is that the previous argument is false.
Secondly, the burden of proof is always on the side which claims the positive e.g. 'This car can fly!', not 'This car can't fly.'
Thirdly, what does people continuing their acts in reservations have to do with the fact that you think it is OK to keep people like pets in cages? Are you completely delusional?
What SHOULD happen is kind of like what happens when pets get vicious: keeping them to an ethical variation of a lead. It might not be the best solution, but it atleast is more ethical than keeping your pet at home and not being nice to it in the first place.
The other side is COMPLETELY unethical and imprisonment should be banned.
You can fine themthere are alot of people that have psychological issues that dont understand why they are in prison. You see ads of how cruel it is to cage animals but you lock people up? Your sick and belong in prison. Get released with no money or clothes or food or shelter and then expect them not to commit a crime? Your sick!!!In federal court if you fight your case they will tripple your sentance. What the hell is that. A nonviolent crime does not deservr time. Face your god and tell him what you think and you will end up in hell. You lose everything you ever had in your life over some bs technicality? Where is persuit of happyness life liberty who are you to say what i do with my body if i want to take drugs then who are you to say no. Maybe we should lock you up for being selfish or selfrichous.Asshole dont talk what you dont know
The human race is so messed up that we can keep people is prison and waste their life, we shouldn't be able to control other people's lives like that and things need to change before the government gets even more power. There has to be a more fair way of keeping people safe.