Most of a nation on probation?

[Sandy Sandfort]

Sampo Syreeni wrote:

> The primary reason is that the
> society simply isn't willing to
> invest enough in prisons to carry
> the load, contrary to what you
> originally claimed.

I don't think I claimed that.  I said that the cost curve wasn't strictly
linear.  Before they release prisoners, the crowding must first become
unbearable.  So that means prisons are all running along the ragged edge of
overcrowding.  This makes parole a MUCH better deal for the prisoner, which
was my point.

> That's just the point -- you can't
> [get rid of the laws]. The political
> machine simply does not work that way,

Well if so, it certainly doesn't allow for your solution.  We have seen
countries and jurisdictions relax their drug laws, for example.  Remember,
the US repealed an anti-drug constitutional amendment.  If they can go
through all the sturm und drang required to repeal an amendment, I don't see
why mere statutes can't be undone.

> >> From the standpoint of individual
> >> freedom, one might argue that more
> >> people are now hurting.
> >
> >Than what, Utopia?
>
> Than anywhere else in the world.

Well, American prisoners are in American prisons.  This discussion has been
about the situation in the US vis-`-vis, parole.

> Europeans' fairly humane attitudes
> towards prison inmates largely serve
> the purpose Tim and I are after with
> the cost talk. The mechanism isn't
> nearly as important as the underlying
> necessity of imposing a real cost on
> governments' harmful activities. That
> is the only way that really works;
> goodwill simply does not get things
> done.

So let me get this straight.  You thing getting Americans (the majority of
whom favor the death penalty) to buy "kinder, gentler" prisons is going to
be easier than getting them to repeal bad laws?  Yeah, that's going to
happen.

> >That isn't the choice now. It's
> >between getting out or staying
> >in a hell-hole prison.
>
> Not true. The same argument you use,
> i.e. that habitual restrictions on
> freedom can be traded for at least
> /some/ freedom, can be used to argue
> that you can always sacrifice your
> freedom in order to stay out of jail
> in the first place.

You are correct, it can.  Scary, huh?  But my point is still true people WHO
ARE ALREADY IN PRISON would prefer to be under restrictive parole than in
some hell-hole prison.  You said "not true," but do you really believe
prison is preferable, even your "kindler, gentler" European prisons?

> >Nobody is hurt by parole.
>
> I hope that was meant as a joke.

Nope, dead serious when compared to the alternative.  Did I need to make
that explicit?

So folks, I'm going off to celebrate my dwindling freedoms this Independence
Day by going to a movie with a pretty girl.  Please feel free to argue among
yourselves in my absence.  :-D


 S a n d y