Prisons: Do we need them?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Millions of people in the world currently rot in jails or prisons. People think of jails and prisons as an essential part of society, but do we really need them? Do prisons really protect people from violence and victimization, or do prisons just make matters worse? Let's look at the different types of criminals that governments throw in prison.

Non-violent non-victimizers - Governments have a tendency to criminalize behaviors that do not hurt anyone. The governments create victimless crimes by creating authoritarian laws. When people break these laws, they have not hurt anyone in any major way. These laws can include any laws outlawing victimless behaviors, such as drug possession, prostitution, peacefully practicing a religion, and so on and so forth. For example, the United States currently has over 1 million people behind bars for victimless crimes, which only limits freedom and does not protect others. Instead of putting these non-violent people in jail or prison, we can just let them go and legalize all victimless behaviors. It makes more sense to let people have freedom than to waste resources enforcing authoritarian laws.

Incidental Criminals - Some people may commit an illegal act of violence or victimization due to external conditions. We can refer to these people as incidental criminals. These 'incidental criminals' do not have any more of a tendency to hurt others than the average person. For example, consider someone who has to steal to feed his family one day. Almost anyone would do that, so it does not mean we need to throw the person in jail or prison. If we can change the conditions that cause a normal person to a commit a crime, then we can do that rather than brutally lock a person in a cell. We have no need to throw a person in jail or prison if they pose no more danger than the average person but committed a one-time crime due to external circumstances.

Mentally Sick People - Finally, we have sick people. These people have some sort of mental defect that makes them a danger to other people. If we do not restrain these people, they will victimize other people. So we must restrain them. But why put them in jail or prison? They need treatment, and prison will not cure them; it will just torture them. If we put them in jail or prison, then we can never let them out because jail or prison will not cure them. If we put them into a treatment facility, then we may successfully treat or cure some of them, at which point we can safely release those ones back into society. We will protect more people by putting mentally sick people into treatment centers (including insane asylums), then by throwing them in jail or prison. These people need professional care in a medical establishment, not the punishment of prison.

I think most people feel like me in that I would prefer to protect people and to do it in as least brutal a way as possible. I have no interest in using the force of government to pointlessly get vengeance or inflict punishment using prisons. Thus, I see no need for prisons. We can release people who have no psychological defect that makes them dangerous, and we can put the ones with psychological defects in treatment. Let's base our policies on sympathy, understanding, and a desire to protect people. Let's not base policy on a wasteful indulgence in state-sanctioned vengeance.

What do you think? Do you think society needs prisons? Why or why not?

Basically, my contention is that society does not need prisons because we can release anyone who does not have a psychological defect making them so dangerous to others as to warrant putting them in a medical asylum.

What do you think? Do you think society needs prisons? Why or why not?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,815 • Replies: 48

No top replies

@ScottHughes,

Quote:

Non-violent non-victimizers - Governments have a tendency to criminalize behaviors that do not hurt anyone. The governments create victimless crimes by creating authoritarian laws. When people break these laws, they have not hurt anyone in any major way. These laws can include any laws outlawing victimless behaviors, such as drug possession, prostitution, peacefully practicing a religion, and so on and so forth. For example, the United States currently has over 1 million people behind bars for victimless crimes, which only limits freedom and does not protect others. Instead of putting these non-violent people in jail or prison, we can just let them go and legalize all victimless behaviors. It makes more sense to let people have freedom than to waste resources enforcing authoritarian laws.

I think you made a mistake by calling drug possession or prostitution a victim less crime. These type of things always inflict back upon the person itself. I don't know if you are familiar with postsecret (as it stated you can post your secrets) but i sometimes read them and a few weeks back saw one that will remain with me for some reason it said: "Giving them blowjobs for money has been the most destructive thing I've done". In this way someone indeed is victim of him/her self. Of course this doesn't have much to do with what the laws state to be a victim but it still is something that destroys. Drugs are here in my country legal, at least the "soft" drugs like mushrooms, cannabis, weed etc are. Hard drugs like XTC, Cocaine, Heroine etc are widely available in all major (and mostly minor) cities. I have never used drugs (didn't see the point of them), but many of my friends have, and it hurt me to see that people really got hooked on the stuff and messed up pretty badly. No one has died (yet) but their minds are screwed up. Just as prostitution drugs makes victims.

I understand why "The Government" want to lock up people who prostitute themselves and use (and probably also sell) drugs. It's due to the simple fact that it is not accepted by them and therefor illegal. Most people who prostitute themselves or own/use/sell drugs are almost always in a downward spiral. The government indeed should not put this people in jail, but must take action to stop this, whether this is by reeducation or just put away being bars for while is the choice of the government. I'd say they have to put them behind bars for a while for detoxification and then reeducate them and force them to stay of the "bad" road. I don't really believe in a gentle and "humane" approach in this kind of situations that are often used, they are just to ineffective for most people. Taking someone's freedom is something (thus putting them in prison) is something that has a better effect. Of course this is different for every individual.

Quote:

Incidental Criminals - Some people may commit an illegal act of violence or victimization due to external conditions. We can refer to these people as incidental criminals. These 'incidental criminals' do not have any more of a tendency to hurt others than the average person. For example, consider someone who has to steal to feed his family one day. Almost anyone would do that, so it does not mean we need to throw the person in jail or prison. If we can change the conditions that cause a normal person to a commit a crime, then we can do that rather than brutally lock a person in a cell. We have no need to throw a person in jail or prison if they pose no more danger than the average person but committed a one-time crime due to external circumstances.

I understand the point, but often it is hard to prove something was incidental or done on purpose. If the government says to person A that he is free to go because they believe he was innocent then person B comes along who is unlike person A guilty, but in the same kind of situation. He can take advantage of the verdict in persons A trial and walk free too. Because of this indeed many people suffer for the "right" crimes.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Regarding "victim less crimes", Vasska makes a good point - often these "crimes" harm the individual committing the crime, even if no one else is harmed. However, I'm not sure causing harm to one's self should be a crime - much less something punishable by time in prison.

Think about it: tobacco, caffeine, and a host of other readily available products cause cancer and a great deal of harm to the individual who uses the product. However, willingly causing harm to one's self in these cases is acceptable. Why not in the case of marijuana, cocaine, or prostitution?

Further, crimes such as illicit drug use and prostitution have been practiced by man as far back as we know. Is there any reason to think that banning these activities, and then placing offenders into prison (where they will become more dangerous to society), will reduce the prevalence of said activities?

I argue against prisons (as seen in modern times) because these institutions make people more violent and more dangerous. Psychological research, if I recall correctly, has proven this point. Therefore, prisons amount to society's revenge on certain individuals for acting in a way society does not accept. Revenge will not solve any of society's problems with drugs, prostitution, or any other crime, including murder. However, it does seem to me that we need some way to separate particular offenders from society.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Prisons are a very much needed institution in every sosciety. However, it is clear that what the prisoners encounters within the prison is not liable to make the prisoner, once released, a new and reformed sitizen. All statistics confirm this (at least norwegian ones) and the american situation being much worse i see them as relevant to the american situation as well Smile

The prison is seen as a place of punishment, rather than a sort of forced rehabilitation institution, which it should be. One can attribute this to the fact that circumstancial evidence in the prisoners favor tends to be of less value than the crime commited in itself. Also, when focus lies on confinement and punishment the prison has criminals living among criminals with a fueled hatred towards society, feeling of stigmatization and abolutely no wish to conform to the society that put them there. Without rehab they "learn" from eachother and further develop criminal behavior through conflicts within the prison and strengthening ties within the criminal community. Also, tricks of the trade are perfected and passed on so that the prisoner leaves the prison with much more knowledge on how to steal a car or how to deal drugs etc... Rather than the desperate, disorganized criminal he once was he is now an serious threat to society. This are the long term efects of the short term sollution of just "locking them up."

With that said, the ideal prison would not in itself solve the problem of criminal behavior, that is just symptoms of the organization of a society in itself. That is important to remember in a world where the concencus seems to be that the longer and harder we punish them the longer and harder they will think before commiting the crime.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Lets look at some of the other people they put in prisions: Mass murderers, psychotics, child molesters, rapists...

It's not a question of do we need prisons because we do. Its more a question of how do we characterize criminality. Prisons do protect the community from the Charlie Mansons of the world by keeping them isolated and out of sight...but those are the extreme, thus by default they are statistically few. The issue that remians is where do we draw the line, and really thats what I think what this post should be about.

Prison overcrowding is not a result of the essence of a prison or its nature, it's the result of a line that was drawn in the past that we now see as unclear today because we take into account something that wasn't accounted for back then: civil rights. We're in the gradual process of redrawing that line but its only the beginning stages.

That and there's a phenomenon known as recidivism that's also growing to be a bigger factor.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Even more dangerous is the following case:

Imagine the 18 year old kid, caught by the police with two ounces of marijuana. In most states, this amount of marijuana is enough to land our poor lad in prison for at least a year.

We can imagine this kid being a decent citizen. Perhaps he goes to college, and works a part time job. Perhaps he was on his way home after work, picked up some weed, but before he could get home to unwind, he is pulled over and subsequently arrested. We throw this boy into prison, with dangerous, violent offenders where he will be abused.

The prison environment breeds violence. The current system takes nonviolent members of society, and by placing them in prison, encourages them to become the most violent members of society.

However, Edvin, I challenge the notion that prisons are necessary to society. What does a prison sentence solve?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Even more dangerous is the following case:

Imagine the 18 year old kid, caught by the police with two ounces of marijuana. In most states, this amount of marijuana is enough to land our poor lad in prison for at least a year.

We can imagine this kid being a decent citizen. Perhaps he goes to college, and works a part time job. Perhaps he was on his way home after work, picked up some weed, but before he could get home to unwind, he is pulled over and subsequently arrested. We throw this boy into prison, with dangerous, violent offenders where he will be abused.

The prison environment breeds violence. The current system takes nonviolent members of society, and by placing them in prison, encourages them to become the most violent members of society.

However, Edvin, I challenge the notion that prisons are necessary to society. What does a prison sentence solve?

Drug users are one group of people I wouldnt classify as criminals...from the scenario you just posted to even a coke addict. They don't need a prison sentence they need rehabilitation, which is not what a prison environment is designed to do. Like I said it's not a question of do we need prisons, it's a question of characterizing criminality.

Now IMHO Drug dealers are a different story.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Then how do we define "drug dealer"?

The subculture around illicit narcotics must be understood before we begin to chop it up into different groups such as "drug user" and "drug dealer".

A drug dealer, simply, would be someone who sells drugs. By law, the sale of any amount of an illicit substance will amount to criminal charges for distribution of said illicit substance. Yet, under the law, someone who is a drug user, who supplies a friend with a drug out of a personal supply, would be considered a drug dealer.

Also, few drug dealers are not also drug users. So, should we send the drug dealer/user to prison for selling drugs, when he needs rehabilitation for his cocaine addiction?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Also, few drug dealers are not also drug users. So, should we send the drug dealer/user to prison for selling drugs, when he needs rehabilitation for his cocaine addiction?

That doesnt always mean that few drug users are not also drug dealers. So automatically assuming that drug users are actually drug users/dealers is a bit of a hasty generalization.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

A drug dealer, simply, would be someone who sells drugs. By law, the sale of any amount of an illicit substance will amount to criminal charges for distribution of said illicit substance. Yet, under the law, someone who is a drug user, who supplies a friend with a drug out of a personal supply, would be considered a drug dealer.

This is where it gets tricky, and I'll admit right now I don't see a convenient one size fit all answer. Why is it tricky? Because supply and sale don't always mean the same thing. A sale is a monetary exchange, supplying isnt just limited to monetary circumstances. For instance if you wanted to to listen to a certain CD I could supply mine to you without charging you a dime; so I wouldnt be selling it to you but I'd be supplying it to you.

Now the catch 22 to this is there would be no way of making this distinction between sale and supply without proof. It's a bit of an easier distinction to make between a drug dealer on the street who has no connection with the person whatsoever; its a bit harder distinction to make when the act takes place between friends.

"Yet, [currently] under the law, someone who is a drug user, who supplies a friend with a drug out of a personal supply, would be considered a drug dealer."

I agree with you that this isn't the way to go.

But again, old precedents being carried out with new considerations. The problem here is we need updated modifed precedents to supplement our new considerations. There's an old saying: "old habits die hard." If we don't change our old habits by modifying our old precedents there will be consequences.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Quote:

That doesnt always mean that few drug users are not also drug dealers. So automatically assuming that drug users are actually drug users/dealers is a bit of a hasty generalization.

I pointed out that the law in the US makes no distinction between a professional 'drug dealer' and a 'drug user helping a friend' - trafficking narcotics will catch the same charge according to the amount being sold and past offenses. I do not believe we should categorize the 'drug user helping a friend' as a 'drug dealer', and I invite you to define 'drug dealer' so that we can better distinguish the two (because, personally, I'd rather not see either go to jail or prison, while you suggest they should).

Another relevant concern is that of the drug dealer, a professional drug dealer, who is also a drug addict. A drug addict, I would argue, cannot act freely. And how can we hold someone responsible for their actions (especially in the form of punishment such as prison, as opposed to some useful practice such as rehabilitation) if they did not act freely?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I do not believe we should categorize the 'drug user helping a friend' as a 'drug dealer', and I invite you to define 'drug dealer' so that we can better distinguish the two (because, personally, I'd rather not see either go to jail or prison, while you suggest they should).

Another relevant concern is that of the drug dealer, a professional drug dealer, who is also a drug addict. A drug addict, I would argue, cannot act freely. And how can we hold someone responsible for their actions (especially in the form of punishment such as prison, as opposed to some useful practice such as rehabilitation) if they did not act freely?

You've completely misinterpreted me. I said that what we need to do with regard to our law is focus on what characterizes criminality. Obviously I wouldn't state this if I didn't think we need to rework our current characterizations. I would define drug dealer just as you have defined it, someone who sells drugs. I realize we're responding kind of ahead of eachother, so I invite you to read my previous response that explains the distinction between sale and supply. I in no way shape or form hold "the drug user 'helping' a friend" to be equivalent to a drug dealer (by helping I presume you mean the user supplying from their personal stash), and thus shouldn't be treated as such under the law.

If you break the law you face the consequences, it's the same in any country no matter where you go. In the case of the drug drug dealer who is also an addict I agree he should be rehabilitated just as any addict should. However once he has been rehabilitated, then he should face the consequences for breaking the law.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

I have not provided a definition for drug dealer. To say a drug dealer is someone who sells drugs is too simple, if we agree that the drug user helping a friend is not a drug dealer (which we do).

As for the drug dealer/addict, I imagine by "face the consequences for breaking the law" you mean some stay in prison. This seems difficult to reconcile with the fact that he was, at the time he was selling drugs (as a drug dealer, whatever we determine that to be), also a drug addict.

I do not think a drug addict can be said to have moral responsibility for his actions because the addict is not free to deny his addiction. As this person is a drug dealer, we can assume his addiction is funded, at least in part, by selling drugs. Therefore, he is not free to not sell drugs because selling drugs allows him to satisfy his addiction, to which he is a slave.
If he could not do otherwise, what good is his prison sentence?

Especially if we assume he should be rehabilitated (which, again, we both agree on), the prison sentence seems to serve no value, to the person in question nor to society.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

As for the drug dealer/addict, I imagine by "face the consequences for breaking the law" you mean some stay in prison. This seems difficult to reconcile with the fact that he was, at the time he was selling drugs (as a drug dealer, whatever we determine that to be), also a drug addict.

I do not think a drug addict can be said to have moral responsibility for his actions because the addict is not free to deny his addiction.

Does that mean that a drug addict should be free from prosecution for murder or for vehicular homicide from DUI if he was on drugs at the time? We have a legal 'out' for mitigating factors like insanity, but if someone gets high and kills someone I don't think that's an excuse for their actions.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Quote:

Does that mean that a drug addict should be free from prosecution for murder or for vehicular homicide from DUI if he was on drugs at the time? We have a legal 'out' for mitigating factors like insanity, but if someone gets high and kills someone I don't think that's an excuse for their actions.

No but fact that they got high, and was high commiting the crime should be taken into concideration when determening the nature of f.eks the motive. In norway one can be deemed insane or not acountable for ones actions during the moment of the crime and get sentenced to rehab centers or whatever institution that is more apropriate than prison. This I think is a good compromise.

1 Reply

@Edvin,

Motive is taken into account -- but motive is largely independent of whether someone was high or not. Someone on drugs can still commit a premeditated murder.

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Quote:

Does that mean that a drug addict should be free from prosecution for murder or for vehicular homicide from DUI if he was on drugs at the time? We have a legal 'out' for mitigating factors like insanity, but if someone gets high and kills someone I don't think that's an excuse for their actions.

Ideally, such a person would undergo rehabilitation until they are ready to reenter society. I'm not a psychologist, so I really wouldn't want to go further than that with my claims here. But really, this is all beside the point: how can we justify a prison sentence for a drug addict?

Quote:

Motive is taken into account -- but motive is largely independent of whether someone was high or not. Someone on drugs can still commit a premeditated murder.

Someone on drugs is not necessarily a drug addict, who I argue does not have free action.

Also, if someone lacks the ability to act freely, yet commits premeditated murder (if such a thing is possible), we still have the trouble of whether or not this person is responsible for his actions.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

how can we justify a prison sentence for a drug addict?

I cannot justify a prison sentence for a drug addict; but I CAN justify a prison sentence for a rapist or murderer or thief who happens to be a drug addict. Drug addiction should be treated like a disease, but you know what I've taken care of a lot of prison inmates with AIDS and diabetes and hypertension, and drug addiction can be taken care of in prison as well.

Quote:

Someone on drugs is not necessarily a drug addict, who I argue does not have free action.

I completely, wholeheartedly, and vehemently disagree with you. I take care of these patients DAILY. They have plenty of "free action".

The so-called "dual diagnosis" patients, who have both drug abuse problems as well as primary psychiatric illness present more of a challenge, because psych illnesses tend to destroy people's insight. But you know I've had plenty of crack addicts and heroin addicts who have a great deal of insight. It's mainly alcoholics whose judgement goes completely to hell sometimes.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Quote:

I cannot justify a prison sentence for a drug addict; but I CAN justify a prison sentence for a rapist or murderer or thief who happens to be a drug addict. Drug addiction should be treated like a disease, but you know what I've taken care of a lot of prison inmates with AIDS and diabetes and hypertension, and drug addiction can be taken care of in prison as well.

I'm not sure AIDS, diabetes, and hypertension are comparable in this case. My objection to the drug addict being given a prison sentence is not that he cannot be treated in prison, but that prison serves no value either to the addict or to society.

Sure, we can treat the disease of drug addiction in prison. The problem is that prison makes individuals more violent, making the individual more dangerous to himself and to society once out of prison.

I have some other objections, but they of course are related to the drug addict and free action, which you address more closely here:

Quote:

I completely, wholeheartedly, and vehemently disagree with you. I take care of these patients DAILY. They have plenty of "free action".

The so-called "dual diagnosis" patients, who have both drug abuse problems as well as primary psychiatric illness present more of a challenge, because psych illnesses tend to destroy people's insight. But you know I've had plenty of crack addicts and heroin addicts who have a great deal of insight. It's mainly alcoholics whose judgement goes completely to hell sometimes.

And I have known more addicts than I care to think about, and I have trouble with the idea that they have 'free action'. Of course, I also lack your medical background and experience:)

You mention insight of crack and heroin patients, but I'm not sure how insight is a sufficient condition for free action. For an action to be a free act, the agent must have been able to chose to act other than he did.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not sure AIDS, diabetes, and hypertension are comparable in this case.

They are comparable. All of these, including drug addiction, are medically complex conditions that can be and are treated in prisons. And in all cases the treatment is highly suboptimal in prisons, but that only argues for getting resources to make the treatments better -- that doesn't argue for people with diabetes being able to avoid imprisonment for treatment.

Quote:

Sure, we can treat the disease of drug addiction in prison. The problem is that prison makes individuals more violent, making the individual more dangerous to himself and to society once out of prison.

This is a practical problem with prisons, not a moral problem with imprisoning drug addicted criminals. And again, we DO have a stipulation for "not guilty by reason of mental illness". That allows the criminally insane to get treatment instead of imprisonment (and psych services in jail are horrible). But I can't see society being willing to grant that exception to drug addicts.

Quote:

And I have known more addicts than I care to think about, and I have trouble with the idea that they have 'free action'.

I agree that for many it takes over their life. But if you sit them down and talk to them about basic "right" and "wrong" ideas in the abstract, they DO know the difference. Their impulse to feed their addiction can overwhelm their judgement, but that only argues for lack of judgement -- and lack of judgement characterizes criminals who are free of drugs as well.

Quote:

You mention insight of crack and heroin patients, but I'm not sure how insight is a sufficient condition for free action. For an action to be a free act, the agent must have been able to chose to act other than he did.

No authentic choice is possible without insight. Some people have more insight than others. But if you have insight and then you go and kill someone, then you have actively made a choice. If you lack insight and you go kill someone, then you haven't made a choice other than following sheer impulse. That still isn't mitigating, either -- it may argue for less intentionality in the murder, so maybe it's 2nd degree or manslaughter instead.

But let me ask you, if they had a more tranquil environment and good rehab services in prisons, would you feel differently about this?

0 Replies

@ScottHughes,

Quote:

They are comparable. All of these, including drug addiction, are medically complex conditions that can be and are treated in prisons. And in all cases the treatment is highly suboptimal in prisons, but that only argues for getting resources to make the treatments better -- that doesn't argue for people with diabetes being able to avoid imprisonment for treatment.

My probablem with comparing AIDS, diabetes and hypertension to drug addiction is that drug addiction (seems to) dominate one's decision making (ie, that an addict might steal to finance his addiction).

Quote:

This is a practical problem with prisons, not a moral problem with imprisoning drug addicted criminals.

I do not see how placing people in such an environment (one that makes them more violent) somehow escapes moral consideration. Conditioning someone to be violent seems morally wrong, and this is exactly what prisons do.

Quote:

And again, we DO have a stipulation for "not guilty by reason of mental illness".

And yet prisons house the bulk of our criminal, mentally ill population.

Quote:

But I can't see society being willing to grant that exception to drug addicts.

That's not the point. I'm not interested in what society may or may not be willing to accept at the moment, I'm interested in what we can justify.

Quote:

But if you sit them down and talk to them about basic "right" and "wrong" ideas in the abstract, they DO know the difference.

I'm not sure how being able to differentiate between the abstract ideas of "right" and "wrong" is a sufficient condition for having free action, and free action seems to be a necessary condition for having moral responsibility.

Quote:

Their impulse to feed their addiction can overwhelm their judgement, but that only argues for lack of judgement -- and lack of judgement characterizes criminals who are free of drugs as well.

If the lack of judgement cannot be helped, per the addiction, then I still have trouble with considering the addict responsible.

Quote:

No authentic choice is possible without insight. Some people have more insight than others. But if you have insight and then you go and kill someone, then you have actively made a choice. If you lack insight and you go kill someone, then you haven't made a choice other than following sheer impulse. That still isn't mitigating, either -- it may argue for less intentionality in the murder, so maybe it's 2nd degree or manslaughter instead.

I agree that insight is a necessary condition for responsiblity - ignorance is an excuse (in the case of moral responsibility, anyway). But I still do not see how having insight is a sufficient condition.

Going back to the drug addict, imagine a crack addict who needs a fix. The addict knows stealing is wrong (he can differentiate between the abstract notions of "right" and "wrong"), therefore he has insight. However, given his addiction, he cannot help but to steal (or commit some other "wrong" act) to satisfy his addiction. Insight without moral responsibility.

Quote:

But let me ask you, if they had a more tranquil environment and good rehab services in prisons, would you feel differently about this?

Sure, if we made sweeping reformations in our prison system, such that "prison" post reforms would be almost unrecognizable to "prison" prior to reform, I would have no problem with the institution called "prison".

My objection to prison, aside from drug addicts and moral responsibility, is their function. Currently, the only results I can see in our prison system are negative. Simply, I don't think the stick works. And I'm not sure any amount of carrot would help.

1 Reply

Prisons: Do we need them?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know