Quote:
Originally posted by glatt
lumberjim, that's an interesting way to look at it.
Jail is generally regarded as 1) a way to punish someone and 2) also a way to protect society by keeping dangerous people locked up.
So you think that people should only be locked up when they are a danger to others? If the answer is yes, how do you feel about oh, let's say: someone who breaks into an empty house and steals personal belongings from said house? Should they go to jail? Just curious here, not judging you.
|
in that specific example, he does pose a threat to people's possessions, but i don't think jail is necessary unless he is a repeat offender. house arrest would be better.
actually, here's what i would do with that kind of criminal if i was king:
the convict of a nonviolent crime, or a victimless crime would be placed under house arrest, and made to work for the state with whatever skills they posessed or hard labor if they had none. their wages would be garnished until their
financial sentence was satisfied, and the house arrest would continue until their punative sentence was satisfied. the two being seperate sentences. at the same time, the jails would be much more unpleasant than they are now, and rehabilitation would not be as big a priority. granted, you'd have to do some really bad shit to get put in there. rape ( viloent rape) murder, arson, voting for bush, etc...
just sketching here, but i like it so far