[nonotreally]

"A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves and to discourage them from causing further harm."

What about this idea doesn't appeal to you? Why do you prefer to have them suffer?

[_brnu]

I never said I preferred anyone suffer. I just said I'm ambivalent. But to your question, I am highly skeptical of the efficacy of those methods, and I think they come at marginal cost to deterrence. I also think there are better places for society to put its money than improving the lot of rapists in prison. I'm also of the opinion that, relative to other countries, US prisons are not the hell the author makes them out to be. By way of example: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/03/26050/

[nonotreally]

How do you reconcile cases of wrongful imprisonment?

[hcurtiss]

Only that it is exceedingly rare. Proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very demanding standard, and is not even shared by all countries in the west, much less the rest of the world. Talk to any prosecutor and you will be assured that, notwithstanding the popular narrative, many, many more guilty people go free in the US than the other way around. But in any event, to the degree there are those who are wrongfully imprisoned, I cannot imagine that supporting an argument that other prisoners should somehow be treated better.

[nonotreally]

I find your entire position very upsetting. Compassion for everyone should be the ideal.

The notion that very human laws, can lead to very negative outcomes for people seems like a terrible system.

In addition, an estimated 40,000 people are wrongfully imprisoned in the US right now.

https://www.orentcriminallaw.com/wrongful-convictions-infogr...

[hcurtiss]

I’m more inclined to attribute those “very negative outcomes” to the life choices of the criminals, which all too often come at the cost of innocent lives and livelihoods.