[knodi123]

Philosophically, it's an interesting idea for discussion.

Sentence criminals to a certain amount of pain, and let them choose whether to experience it via decades of low-grade boredom, or hours/minutes/seconds of intense agony.

Personally, in an ideal world that is not this one, I think that prison serves the dual purpose of rehabilitation and removal-from-society, and that the "voluntary torture" approach serves neither end. But in our actual world, prison is only sometimes barely-rehabilitative, and I'm not sure how valuable removal from society is on its own. So... interesting discussion, at least.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Philosophically interesting, but I'm not sure it really serves all the purposes prison has. There are four widely recognized ones: retribution, discouragement of crime, protection of society (via isolation of harmful members), and rehabilitation. A short period of intense suffering, even supposing you could inflict an equivalent amount of "pain units", only addresses retribution and discouragement of crime.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

As for protection of society, I don't think Ross Ulbricht would be a threat to society if he were released now. He is in prison mainly to serve as an example to others. There are probably a lot of other people like him in prison.

As for rehabilitation, I would think that in most cases it could be better accomplished via a community based program. For example, drug rehab works better in drug treatment facilities than in prison.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Sure, I'm not speaking specifically of Ross' case, but the general case of prisoners preferring a quick, extreme punishment to a drawn out, mild punishment.

I agree that Ross is not someone who is a serious reoffender risk. OTOH, justice professionals might feel differently based on his lack of contrition (this typically counts against convicts at sentencing, partly because there's a view that it says something about recidivism risk). https://fortune.com/2015/06/01/why-a-judge-threw-the-book-at...

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

There are cases where we want to punish some behavior, but it is not necessary to remove them from society.

An example is for example the Enron case. The executives needed to be punished, but I doubt they were an ongoing threat to society after they had been exposed.

Ross Ulbricht is another example. I doubt that he is an ongoing threat to society but still needs some punishment for breaking the law.

Bernie Madoff is another example. I doubt that he is an ongoing threat to society, but he is in prison as punishment and to serve as a deterrent to others.

In cases like these, the "voluntary corporal punishment" might be an option.