Sampo Syreeni
But just as Tim argues, the latter always involves cost-effectiveness too...There should always be a sufficient, predictable cost associated with putting people away to guard against criminalization for convenience, prudence and political gain only.
I'm sure that "cost-effectiveness" has a role to play here. I just don't agree that the cost savings of parole are all that big a factor. The US has more prisoners per capital than just about anyone (I think the US is surpassed by Russia and maybe South Africa). So we've already made the decision that we can afford to lock up a lot of people. Also, the assumption that locking up more people comes at some sort of linear increase in costs. One of the simplest answers is to just overcrowd the facilities "we" already have. No, I think Tim and Sampo have the cart before the horse. We have the criminal laws we have because that feeds the government, not because we save so much with parole. Eliminating parole by overcrowding or by building still more prisons would increase, not decrease human suffering. Honestly, would you rather wear a ankle transponder or be Bruno's bitch? S a n d y