Does this view not presuppose that the exhibitors of the anti-social behavior cannot be fixed or remade into useful members of society? If you believe that, fine, but if you think that some could be reformed, why is that not worth the money? "Reform", in my mind, has nothing to do with pampering. It could be even more torturous than now...For example A Clockwork Orange. Not that I'm advocating that.

Does this view also not presuppose that all prisoners have exhibited anti-social behavior? I think we can both say that this is not the case. Although, prisons tend to somewhat separate the two populations.

I suppose that good people can make a[singular and non-violent] mistake or error in judgement which can run them a foul of the law. These people don't require reform. They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on.

I also suppose that others are more habitually and fundamentally anti-social. These people are not worth the effort of trying to 'save'. The brains have literally been wired for this behavior[over the course of many years]. They must be removed from society.

There are also those somewhere in between natural-born killer and 'busted for pot'. These people are responsible for their own personal choices. If they keep making bad choices of their own volition I have no compassion for them. [I say this from first hand experience dealing with a close relative who is a lifelong fuck-up.]

You are making a lot of assumptions, which seem taylored to bolster a particular worldview, rather than be based in fact. In particular, you assume

1. People differ vastly in their innate ability to follow societal rules.

2. The justice system is able to distinguish between people who make simple mistakes, and people who are unable to follow society rules.

3. The above is a big factor in sentencing.

While there is evidence that some aspects of behavior are innate, there is also a huge literature linking the environment a person is raised in, and their tendency towards crime. Furthermore, sentencing is generally extremely inconsistent by any standards, so it is very unlikely that sentencing would fit your criteria for being lenient to the right people. Finally, it's hard to think of sentencing criteria that fit the criteria you propose, and are also objective.

I dont necessarily agree with your moral standpoints however the statement "They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on.", this is not typically the case... there are plenty of people who receive light sentences and plenty who get the book thrown at them for non violent first time offenses

If people can be changed then they will change given the right incentives, which can be achieve simply by making prison sufficiently harsh and long enough.

Your use of declarative and profound statements, with no evidence, gives me a high degree of distrust towards anything you say.

With that said, I have a few specific points.

> Prison is society's recourse for anti-social behavior

Lets speak objectively. Prison is a punishment that is forced upon some people who are found guilty of breaking some law. Many laws exist without thought for "social" behavior.

> Does it have to be a violent and horrible place? No. The residents tend to make it that.

Some residents make it that. Other residents have little to no "social" means of preventing or defending themselves against it.

> I am against pampering in anyway, with my tax dollars, people whom I've had to remove from proper society...for anti-social behavior.

Its funny that you use the word "pampering" when the alternative we are discussing is torture.

Nonetheless, this is the easiest point at which I can find common ground with you. Would you, rather than pay with your tax dollars for "pampering" prisoners, pay for educating prisoners so that our GDP grows? If there were ways to measure that GDP increased because we educated and enabled certain prisoners, would you gripe less?

> Prison is supposed to be a deterrent.

I've always heard that its supposed to be for rehabilitation. But, again, lets speak to the reality rather than the ideal: Prison is obviously not an effective deterrent.

> These people don't require reform. They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on.

What evidence do you have that people who don't need reform are typically leniently sentenced?

Oh for fuck's sake...is smoking a bowl on a weekend anti-social? What about trimming a quarter inch from a shotgun barrel? Or issuing well-formed GETs against a public API?

Banishment or death? Really? You do realize that pretty much any inventor or programmer of note in the US--the folks on whose shoulders all of us stand--are likely guilty of several "anti-social" actions?

Prisons, as implemented, are a bad answer to a stupid question.

Humans make mistakes. Here on HN, it's repeatedly announced that making mistakes is a good thing, as long as you are allowed to learn from them - it makes you a better person/founder/businessperson. Your mindset just doesn't match this - one mistake and you're literally dead. That you consider a few tax dollars so rapaciously important to yourself speaks rather badly of your priorities.