National Association of Social Workers is responsible for prison funding?

International Workers of the World? What other teams am I on?

My Warzone quad? The therapy team at my hospital?

Guy must be a Catholic priest or something.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 5 2021 05:13pm

I think we can all agree that it would be better to fix the system but that's a long term solution that will take several decades. What about the people who are suffering now? Should we condemn people who CAN be saved due to some warped sense of fairness? Imagine if we applied this principle to healthcare, education, etc. We'd have no Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. We'd have no cutting edge experimental treatments that could save millions of lives in the long run.

Your “bandaid fix” is not at all helpful and would only make the system more broken my dude. Offer it to everyone or suffer the same punishment as all criminals do. Money should have 0 influence on if you get out of a crime or not

Are you pretending to be apolitical now? The funny thing is, you're very familiar with the concept of limited resources. On a day to day basis, you can figure out which patients will benefit more from treatment and which ones won't and you adjust accordingly. Sometimes that means making tough decisions on who to help more and who to condemn. If you give everyone the same resource, you're failing in your optimization which is detrimental to society. The same principle applies here because our goal is to maximize the number of people who can be rehabilitated so society can be safer.

I strongly disagree. It's helpful to the people who can be saved

If a child steals from a store, realizes that they were wrong, and you're reasonably confident that they won't do it again....should you give them the same sentence as the child who has been caught stealing a dozen times? That seems like a very backwards way of doing things...

Your example is bias towards your argument lol. only reasonable comparison would be if two individuals did the same crime but one of them was rich. Answer would be they should both get the same punishment

I actually see it the other way. The kid with poor parents has a reason to be that way. They can be saved with rehabilitation and with help. The rich kid is probably just a prick. They had ever advantage and still did the thing they did. If anything, the fact they already had that help and still did what they did means they are less likely to recover.

There are many, many variables at play. If all other variables are equal and we can show that wealth would have no impact on the probability or rehabilitation, then they should be treated equally.

That's not really the case here. The judge is saying that the resources available to the man (not just wealth, but family support!) have a SUBSTANTIAL impact on the probability of rehabilitation.

At least when they are re-introduced there is a chance a good-samaritan/family-member/father can unload one into the degenerates head.

The punishment should fit the crime, and some crimes should be 'punish the body' vs 'rehab the mind'.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Oct 5 2021 06:07pm

that user does that all the time. doesnt fool anyone not even his patients