| Your use of declarative and profound statements, with no evidence, gives me a high degree of distrust towards anything you say. With that said, I have a few specific points. > Prison is society's recourse for anti-social behavior Lets speak objectively. Prison is a punishment that is forced upon some people who are found guilty of breaking some law. Many laws exist without thought for "social" behavior. > Does it have to be a violent and horrible place? No. The residents tend to make it that. Some residents make it that. Other residents have little to no "social" means of preventing or defending themselves against it. > I am against pampering in anyway, with my tax dollars, people whom I've had to remove from proper society...for anti-social behavior. Its funny that you use the word "pampering" when the alternative we are discussing is torture. Nonetheless, this is the easiest point at which I can find common ground with you. Would you, rather than pay with your tax dollars for "pampering" prisoners, pay for educating prisoners so that our GDP grows? If there were ways to measure that GDP increased because we educated and enabled certain prisoners, would you gripe less? > Prison is supposed to be a deterrent. I've always heard that its supposed to be for rehabilitation. But, again, lets speak to the reality rather than the ideal: Prison is obviously not an effective deterrent. > These people don't require reform. They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on. What evidence do you have that people who don't need reform are typically leniently sentenced? |