"Why is it reasonable to believe in prisons, but not in the hell?"

[FlatAssembler]

So, what do you think, what is the best response to the question "Why is it reasonable to believe in prisons, but in the hell?"? My first instinct was to say "Well, there are people who have been to prisons and have come back to tell us, but nobody has returned from hell to confirm us it exists.". However, I think a valid counter-argument to that is "But there have been some near-death-experiencer claiming to have been to hell.".
Another response I can think of to the question from the title is "How could hell ever be a just punishment? Hell is an infinite punishment, and all the crimes we can do on this world are finite.". However, I think a valid response to that is: "How is putting people into prisons justice? Nobody murders unless he or she is insane. And prison is not a place where a sane person will become sane, it is a place from which he will return with even more psychological problems. Besides, how is it justice when you have about 50% chance of getting away with a murder? Around half of murder cases are never solved. Justice means willful actions have predictable consequences. Furthermore, we are living in a society where nobody knows first-hand what is legal and what isn't. The laws we have are so complicated that nobody can fully understand our legal system. That is not justice either."
Another response I can think of to the question from the title is claiming that hell contradicts science, since one needs nervous system to feel pain, but that is all destroyed once one dies. However, it seems to me a valid counter-response to that is to claim that the existence of prisons contradicts one of the basic principle of all modern social sciences, that is the principle of rationality. One of the basic principle of modern social science, which one gets ridiculed for questioning (like Bryan Caplan is being), is that the society as a whole as if every individual was rational, because the irrationality of individuals cancels each other out. In other words, that systematic biases are impossible. But in order for prisons to exist, politicians would have to be systematically biased, since a rational person cannot believe prisons are a good thing.
So, what do you think about that stuff?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When I was stationed in Long Beach, CA, I volunteered at a half-way house for veterans who had been incarcerated. I was available all Thursday night, including Thanksgivings, for anyone who needed someone to talk to. I was required to write notes of those talks and submit them to the people who determined who was ready for the street.

One night the most hinky dude I've ever met came into the office and started rambling. I didn't have a tape recorder handy, but my notes said "This person should never, ever, be released from prison."

A cell is a cell, in Bedlam or San Quentin.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You can go to a prison and talk to the inmates, tour the facilities, chat with the guards, interview the warden. None of this applies to Hell.

If you want to argue against the existence of Hell, by all means do so. If you want to argue that the penal system is frequently unjust and badly in need of reform, I’m with you. But the body of your post seems treat these as parts of the same arguement, and that’s nonsense.

Your initial question is rubbish, and your expansion of it is off-point and poorly thought out.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

It is hard to believe that some prisons exist, like these Nordic prison cells that look like $3,000 apartments in San Francisco.

[onlinebiker]

The exact same reason it is reasonable to believe in Doctor Albert Einstein and not Professor James Moriarty...

One is real. One is fictional.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The exact same reason it is reasonable to believe in Doctor Albert Einstein and not Professor James Moriarty...

One is real. One is fictional.

Watch who yer calling ‘fictional’, pally.  

Boru

[Brian37]

Prisons, at least in the west, are not intended for revenge, but containment. Not even our death penalty is an act of eternal torture. Hell is not a corrective measure as a concept, or an act of containment, but an act of revenge.

[rado84]

Prisons exist, you can see them and touch them. Humans manage these prisons. People have returned from prisons and sometimes they tell their story what it's like in prison. People have spent part of their lives in these prisons and walk freely now (like Varg Vikernes who I respect mostly bc he likes to burn churches).
Nobody has yet returned from heaven or hell to say what it's like in there, not to mention you can't see either or touch either of them, therefore they don't exist.

[FlatAssembler]

You can go to a prison and talk to the inmates, tour the facilities, chat with the guards, interview the warden.

Well, that was the argument that NonZeroSum used when I was arguing prisons do not exist on their forum. However, I have tried to perform an experiment to test that, and I failed.

If you want to argue against the existence of Hell, by all means do so.

And will you ban me if I try to argue against the existence of prisons?

The exact same reason it is reasonable to believe in Doctor Albert Einstein and not Professor James Moriarty...

One is real. One is fictional.

But how do you know what is real and what is fictional?

Prisons, at least in the west, are not intended for revenge, but containment.

I am not sure what you mean.

Prisons exist, you can see them and touch them.

Well, yes, you can see them, but how do you know what you are looking at? How do you know there are really many people in there?

Nobody has yet returned from heaven or hell to say what it's like in there

You have never heard of near-death experiences?

[rado84]

Well, yes, you can see them, but how do you know what you are looking at? How do you know there are really many people in there?

Um, IDK, how about the fence? Or the armed guards walking around? Or the barred windows?

You have never heard of near-death experiences?

Using cheap and bad drug doesn't make it real.