I am of the opinion that 99% of crimes that currently involve prison sentences (like robbery) should not. I’ve never heard of e.g. a billionaire robbing a liquor store (though I wouldn’t put it past Branson), and there are many studies that show that the vast majority of crime is driven by socioeconomic factors.
For the remaining, more heinous, often more personal crimes like domestic violence, murder of known persons (many murders are also functions of socioeconomics), and rape, I think the response should be bespoke. Even just the 3 I listed have very different causes, motivations, chances of recurrence, etc. Psychological assessments should be the first touch points in those cases, imo, to determine what kind of and how feasible rehabilitation is. The money we spend on the thousands of police who terrorize minorities and poor people, and their paramilitary gear just for them to look macho while they chase some poor person who stole some snacks from a store, could easily pay for this system many times over.
I am not personally a complete prison abolitionist however (though US ones need abolishment, 1000%), because I do not accept capital punishment, and an uncomfortable reality many prison abolitionists tend not to address is what to do with someone who is cognizant of their actions, resistant to rehabilitation, or who professes intent or are assessed by a medical professional to be likely to do something heinous again. You eventually are left with either physically remove their ability to to the bad thing, or just accept their actions.
Luckily, there are very few people who are just pathologically compelled to murder/ rape/ assault; most are opportunistic and emotion-driven. Even for those last few, however, there are sometimes alternatives to permanent incarceration.
I am of the opinion that 99% of crimes that currently involve prison sentences (like robbery) should not. I’ve never heard of e.g. a billionaire robbing a liquor store (though I wouldn’t put it past Branson), and there are many studies that show that the vast majority of crime is driven by socioeconomic factors.
For the remaining, more heinous, often more personal crimes like domestic violence, murder of known persons (many murders are also functions of socioeconomics), and rape, I think the response should be bespoke. Even just the 3 I listed have very different causes, motivations, chances of recurrence, etc. Psychological assessments should be the first touch points in those cases, imo, to determine what kind of and how feasible rehabilitation is. The money we spend on the thousands of police who terrorize minorities and poor people, and their paramilitary gear just for them to look macho while they chase some poor person who stole some snacks from a store, could easily pay for this system many times over.
I am not personally a complete prison abolitionist however (though US ones need abolishment, 1000%), because I do not accept capital punishment, and an uncomfortable reality many prison abolitionists tend not to address is what to do with someone who is cognizant of their actions, resistant to rehabilitation, or who professes intent or are assessed by a medical professional to be likely to do something heinous again. You eventually are left with either physically remove their ability to to the bad thing, or just accept their actions.
Luckily, there are very few people who are just pathologically compelled to murder/ rape/ assault; most are opportunistic and emotion-driven. Even for those last few, however, there are sometimes alternatives to permanent incarceration.