In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is no
less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

This is ridiculous. This will be my last posting on this matter.

The problems with excessive incarceration are well-known. Firstly,
it often turns curable criminals (including ones who have been
violent) into habitual criminals. And, secondly, it means that
the innocent and relatively so get corrupted by the hardened
criminals.

If there were a simple classification into habitual violent
criminals and non-violent suspects and criminals who will respond
to other penalties, then your black-and-white ideas would work.
Now, here, in the real world, things are not like that!

I suggest that you read up some serious studies on penology.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.