morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Aroura]

I think I answered that in my follow up post?

"I would also like to point out that I AM 100% against punishment for punishments sake. The death penalty, etc, is flat out wrong. Rehab should be priority for people who harm others and/or themselves, and if rehab is not an option, humane ways of protecting the public should be employed (lock-up but not solitary, sunlight, activity, and decent food, etc). "

But if that isn't clear enough, I'll try and elaborate, and be more specific.

No, it is not justifiable to specifically lock someone up or put them in jail simply for breaking a law or even causing harm.

Civilized places already do the following:
Step 1.  Attempt to correct the harmful behavior.  The vast majority of misbehavior is actually made worse by simply locking a person away.  Most minor to moderate misbehaviors can be corrected with time and effort.  That's why we call it the "Corrections" system.  The goal is to correct the behavior, first, and foremost, not to punish.  Do you agree?
Step 2. If person is severely dangerous, they may need to be kept away from the public while being corrected.  This would require some form of "locking-up", though it would vary per case.  Some people could do well under house arrest, others may require being kept in special facilites.  Serial violent offenders would fall into the later category.
Step 3.  If a person cannot be corrected for whatever reason, you just keep them in step 2.  You do your best to correct them while keeping them safely away from the pubic.  This becomes permanent.  Even the worst offenders should not be put in solitary confinement as a punishment (which can turn sane people insane).  People should be periodically reviewed for their safely. Rational steps should be take between rehab and release.  

I will field the follow-up question I suspect you are going to ask before you ask it. 
The justification for locking a person up at all is pretty obvious to me and others who hold these same ideas.  We aren't locking them up for chosing to be bad or "evil", we are locking them up to keep others, and often the person in question, safe.  

Again, hope that helps answer your questions.

I have one for you.  Very seriously, how do you think Jesus would propose we deal with nonviolent criminals?  And with violent ones?

Yeah, I saw you had already answered after I read what you wrote lol. Sorry bout that. 

I think there are 2 justifiable reasons for putting people in jail:

1. To protect the rights of others. (For stealing, harming, raping, destroying property, or killing. People who do drugs/prostitution should not go to jail bc they are not infringing on others' rights)

2. To deter people from committing crimes by establishing jail time as a consequence.

Like you, I disagree with the death penalty, solitary confinement, and am even starting to wonder if life in prison without possibility of parole is ok.

I agree that imprisonment shouldn't be done as punishment for punishment's sake.   

However, if I thought the criminal did not choose to act the way they did, I still wouldn't feel right about them being imprisoned, even under the 2 justifiable reasons I posted above. So for people who I believe actually didn't choose to act as they did, such as those who are innocent for reason of insanity, I think they should stay at a hospital and maybe house arrest, and only for long enough until they are treated. 

I try to hold the position that I think Jesus would hold, so if I had to guess on His position, it would be the same one I already explained above. To recap: 

1. Imprisonment for those who infringe on other's rights (thieves, rapists, murderers, etc), while still respecting their human dignity by outlawing death penalty and solitary confinement.   

2. No imprisonment for those who don't infringe on other's rights (prostitutes, drug users, etc) 

3. Treatment and no imprisonment who those who had no control over the crime they committed (insane people)

Ok, I'm on board with most of that.  I actually think improsonment is wrong, and that every person fits under category 3.  Thereofr, no imprisonment and treatment.


Prisons are a monstrosity to me (as they currently exist, anyway). Permanent "imprisonment" should basically be for the very criminally insane who cannot ever be fully cured or made safe for society, and should never be in a "prison" but instead in (well kept and well managed) mental hospitals, where people continue to get treatment, and are continually evaluated to see if they have improved because as you say, life without parole is also unjust.  What if there is a new medication or treatment that comes along that can help them?

But just locking people up?  No. It fixes nothing, and unjustly harms a lot of people.
Put them somewhere they can learn not to infringe on someone's right, teach them, help them, treat them, then help them get back into society when and where they can.

Honestly, you and I agree here about 95%, it's just a few details and a few why's we are tussling over.