• Floofah@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    A good question. The recidivism costs I guess are what most, me included, will view as a valid reason to continue imprisonment for serious offences.

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Me too.

      Society has a limit to how much of “crime X” they’ll tolerate.

      Some should be exactly one: murder, rape, toture, etc. I’d argue that provable attempts at those count as one, so the threshold is actually less than one.

      I feel like pretty much everything else can be “civil” consequences:

      • financial crimes: forbidden from holding a position with fiduciary responsibility, repayment, punitive damages.
      • theft: restitution, punitive damages, restraining orders

      What I’m really unsure about is, arguably, progenitors to violence:

      • drink driving? Lose license, curfew? What happens when they do it again and hurt someone?
      • harassment? Restraining orders? What happens when it escalates?

      Just to throw a few into discussion.

      • Floofah@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a tough call in deciding the seriousness of an offence when deciding the consequences, especially when it is a repeat. The costs of incarceration are huge, yet it seems to be needed to hopefully discourage the more serious crimes.