That's the problem. A lot of people in the US like the idea of punishing and giving out moral retributions more than improving society in the long term.
As an American, it's a tough situation. I recognize that our strategies don't work and that mass incarceration with no socialization programs is an obvious failure, but at the same time I demand people be punished if they hurt me, not just inconvenienced. I don't care about a populations' propensity to reoffend at a societal level, I care that a specific individual hurt me and they need to make it right somehow or suffer consequences. If there is no perception of justice then I think we can expect extra-judicial retaliations.
> I don't care about a populations' propensity to reoffend at a societal level, I care that a specific individual hurt me and they need to make it right somehow or suffer consequences.
This seems pretty shortsighted to what incarceration can do to say, families. While you say you _demand_ people be punished if they hurt you, you're also demanding their family and kids be punished as well. Did the kid ask for this?
This is the kind of cycle that easily repeats. Children from broken / distressed homes have more trouble in life and are more likely to offend.
And the cycle begins again. Making everyone worse.
By that logic, you wouldn't fire an underperforming employee, because it could negatively affect their family and kids?
I'm not saying getting fired and going to prison have equivalent effects, but expecting that no person should be punished because it can detrimentally affect people close to them doesn't seem like a reasonable argument.
That's an interesting point. The big difference between prison and business are that the business is out to make a profit from you being there. If that's not happening, then sure, you should be let go. You could say the same thing about downsizing employees, since they are not even underperforming, but you don't need them anymore. It's not a business place to take up the slack for society. That's government's job.
Do I think there's a place for government to provide unemployment and welfare benefits for families? Yes, and they do.
The point I was trying to make is that there's a difference between being punished because it's good for society, and punished to provide a sense of vengeance or justice for the victim.
We should isolate people that are a danger to society, like murderers. But as soon as it's about the "feeling of justice" for the victim, emotions get complicated and are hard to measure and be fair about.
What we really need is all this in balance and to look at the macro level, as well as the micro, and try to find something that works.
If the employee didn't have any other good options, and the company could survive it, then certainly.
Of course this is easy for me to say.. In Norway unemployment benefits are good an unemployment rate low, so it's quite likely that the person would be fine. But even so, it is less likely that someone would be fired for 'underperforming' compared to say the US.
For almost anyone with a career, a life plan, a family, friends or any community or social status etc, being convicted of a crime is already a massive consequence. It will often affect their life forever, even if they clean up their act afterward. Serving time in a real prison is an even bigger deal.
Are you only talking about people that have "nothing to lose"?
"An eye for an eye" doesn't work in practice because the punishment is not harsh enough to deter the crime in the first place, at least in terms of petty crimes. If the punishment for stealing $50 from someone is that I have to pay $50, I'm gonna be stealing all day long if I believe I have a better than 50% chance of not getting caught.
For more serious crimes, like DUI, the punishments are not severe enough. You don't lose your license until you have multiple DUIs. Even then, you will likely continue driving illegally while intoxicated until you t-bone another car and kill the family inside. Then the court/jury will "struggle" to determine if you deserve the death penalty.
In fact, the harshness of punishment in general is not an effective deterrent, as illustrated by the death penalty. If you're serious about actually lowering crime rates, look elsewhere.
Actually I believe prison should be the option of last resort as nobody benefits from locking someone up where they can't work or benefit society. I would prefer compensation in the form of money or labor if possible. If not, then that individual should be sent to prison.
As an American, I don't want people punished if they hurt or wrong me. I want them rehabilitated so they don't go and hurt me or someone else in the future.
The action is done, hurting the perpetrator in return won't restore me, I just don't want it to happen again.
But that has to be part of why we have a state. To make the most rational decision possible when individuals can only make emotional ones. It can't be the state's place to carry out people's personal vendettas no matter how justified they might seem. That's no way to run a civilization. If there's one good thing bureaucracy does it's ironing out some of the violent irrationalities and impulsivities inherent to human judgment.
That's the problem. A lot of people in the US like the idea of punishing and giving out moral retributions more than improving society in the long term.