[rkevingibson]

Not a chance. Human interaction is crucial to rehabilitation - what do you think the recidivism rates would be like for a person who hasn't had a real interaction with someone in months or years? The goal should be to make prison more like the world outside, not less. This sounds more inhumane than the existing model, and that's saying something.

[hugh4]

There is human interaction. Via videophone. We isolate people from bad influences, though.

People say "omg mental illness" but this kind of thing has never even been tried in the Skype age.

The goal is to make it more like the outside world, in important ways. We take people who live among bad influences and instead of immersing them in a world of even worse influences we put them in an environment where they're surrounded by positive influences (without being allowed to forget that, yes, they're in prison.)

[MarcusVorenus]

Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though? Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

[nkoren]

> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though?

Because to treat a human being like they are not a human being makes you evil.

> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

Data says: no. Beyond the simple deterrence of losing one's liberty (which is significant), the harshness of prison has no real deterrent effect -- but does serve to acclimate prisoners to violence, coercion, and anti-social behaviour. What prison does is rehabilitate, or fail to rehabilitate. That is the metric which matters.

[thesteamboat]

> Won't the deterrent effect of prison be reduced if we go too easy on them?

I don't think this is true. More precisely, it's obviously true that extremes can change how much of a deterrent effect there is, (e.g. if prison is a 5-star resort people might prefer to be inside than out), but your position is like trickle-down economics.

The Laffer curve certainly exists in the sense that governments collect less revenue from taxing either 0% or 100% than they do from some intermediate amount. But using this tautology to assert we should categorically lower taxes ignores the crucial question of where we are in that curve.

Importantly there seems to be a fairly inelastic response to changes in sentencing; drastic changes in sentencing seem not to generally change criminal behaviour (see a wealth of statistics on the death penalty, also the crime rate collapse since the 90's).

To decide whether we want to make prisons more or less humane we need to address the purpose of prisons. If you think prisons are primarily for justice/punishment, I'd urge you to consider the numerous lapses of our legal system, the fact that ~95% of prosecutions end in plea bargains instead of trials, endemic prosecutorial overreach, and the severe shortage of adequate counsel/public defenders for the poor. Additionally, consider the "three felonies a day" complaint --- that laws are poorly and vaguely written, general to the point of absurdity, and opaque --- which means that you could probably be convicted of something by a sufficiently zealous prosecutor.

If you think prisons are primarily about effecting good outcomes for the rest of society I'd argue that a system that focuses on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism will necessarily be more humane.

Finally, as others have said though it bears repeating, we (as society) should treat people humanely. Full Stop. Not because they are human, but because we are.

[Terr_]

It's not even a "curve" really, it's simply an observation that 0% tax and 100% are probably local-minima.

[dtmooreiv]

Because they're human? Because wrongful convictions happen? Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.[1]

[1] -pdf warning http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%2...

[dragonwriter]

> Also, the deterrent effect of prison is more dependent on certainty of punishment, rather than severity of punishment.

Good point. I suspect its even more based on the perceived marginal increase in likelihood of punishment if an act which is intended to be deterred is committed vs. if it is not. Certainty of punishment is one factor that weighs in that, but certainty of nonpunishment of the act is not committed is also a factor.

[mfoy_]

>Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though?

Because criminals are still human. I can't believe I have to actually say that...

[mizzao]

Evidence? Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes. They might think about whether they will be caught.

[hugh4]

> Most people don't think about prison when they are committing crimes

Selection bias. The sort of people who think about prison when committing crimes are the sort of people who don't commit crimes.

The criminal class is drawn almost entirely from those who suck at thinking ahead.

[atonparker]

Getting a strong Poe's Law vibe here. Are you asking why humans need to be treated humanely?

[MaysonL]

Because they're human beings. Torture is evil.

[dragonwriter]

> Why do criminals need to be treated humanely though?

Answered in the post you respond to: "Human interaction is crucial to rehabilitation"