🚀 go-pugleaf

rothstei@Snake.mcs.kent.edu (Michael Rothstein) writes:

>Yes; however, I would like to see that kind of thing enacted at the
>_federal_level_; the real smart-asses would just move from state to
>state otherwise...


One other thing to consider --- you would have to build ALOT more prisons
and hire ALOT more guards, etc.  That means you would have to pay ALOT
more taxes.  You might be able to run prison-based businesses to help
defray to costs, but these would compete with legitimate privately-owned
businesses (except the prison labor would cost next to nothing).

I don't believe that the increased incarceration rate would deter crime, because
most violent criminals don't worry about being caught.  But it would, arguably,
make the streets safe at least from the ones who have already commited some
crimes.

Also, to be effective, you would have to use the carrot and stick approach.
The whole concept of prison would have to be changed, at least for the first
time (and probably the second time) offenders, to emphasize rehabilitation
as well as punishment.  For the third time offenders, the question is
neither one of rehabilitation or punishment.  It is merely one of segregating
the most dangerous people from the rest of society.

Now, as the 80's demonstrated, people don't want to pay ANY more taxes,
let alone ALOT.  Maybe they would for this, but maybe that money would be
better spent in helping guide children away from crime in the first place
(like better schools, getting mothers off of welfare, etc. etc.).

One last point -- most violent crimes these days are drug-related, either
directly related to drug trafficking, or related to people stealing to
support an expensive drug habit.  What do people think about drug legalization,
and letting market forces fix the problem?