Would you rather they pay you back than cause 30k+ per year to the taxpayer. How about they are in a job program and earn it back for you and garnished wages until it is paid.

Also did you have insurance? Did it cover it? Do you need someone locked in a box for years because of it? Is it that level of crime? What if you have a son and he did it, would you want him turned into a lifetime criminal? Our current system is basically locking people into a life of crime and bringing criminals together to further spiral into it.

There's a difference between Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's dying child and an organized crew which makes a living from robbing houses. The former is a great candidate for a job program. The latter already have their own job problem; it's just rather antisocial.

There's not enough jobs as it is, why should Criminals get jobs, when lawful citizens can't find employment? But I'll entertain your idea.

Say Jean valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his family (highly unlikely), then let's make the punishment of his crime, to replenish that item by working (but not like labor camps of course). Jean would have to work on a farm, planting seeds, pulling weeds from the wheat field, in the hot sun along side illegal immigrants. That should be punishment enough right? But before he could return to normal American life, he'd first have to sign a promissory note to his allegiance with the Democratic party . Sounds like awin-win. Who needs food stamps? Ah so here we are, reducing illegal immigration while helping poor Jean recover himself. Let's send a letter to Congress.

No. I would rather they go to jail.

I had insurance, it did not cover all of the losses. Assuming this wasn't the first house they robbed, there are many people who suffered losses as well.

I do have a son and I would be very unhappy if he started robbing houses. Because of this, I consider it my responsibility to raise him correctly. A concept that seems sadly out of fashion these days.

Why would you rather? Do you know what goes on there?

I guess the question is how much would you pay from your own salary to lock them up. Because we are paying. Are we getting our money's worth?

I pay taxes from my salary and a portion of those taxes goes to pay prisons. I would be happy to pay more.

Why do you want them locked up?

The things I'd like to happen are: 1) Reduce the liklihood that these people will commit further crimes 2) Discourage other people from robbing homes 3) Help you replace the things you lost

I'm not really familiar with the literature on this, but I'd guess there are more effective options than prison for all three of those.

I want them locked up, so they don't commit more crimes. Obviously the police don't catch every criminal that commits every crime. So catching them and locking them prevents them from committing more crimes.

> I want them locked up, so they don't commit more crimes.

Do you have evidence that prison actually reduces future crimes?

I think he's getting at the fact that if they're in a cage they can't commit crimes while in there (sorta). Recidivism rates would suggest that prison doesn't actually do much to prevent future crime unless they're physically in the prison.

> I think he's getting at the fact that if they're in a cage they can't commit crimes while in there

Yeah, that's what I suspected. To me, that line of thinking feels short-sighted and/or motivated by revenge rather than rationality.

> Recidivism rates

In the US.

It reduces it 100% on the people that aren't let out again. Which suggests that we should be looking at life in prison, rather than shorter sentences if we really want crime to go down and we are conserned about them becoming hard-core criminals.

Actually though I think there is a mismatch - there are two groups here, those who made a mistake but are fundamentally good people (they perhaps have a drinking problem or a drug problem, fell into a bad crowd, etc) those should probably not be put in jail, but more a closed treatment center, put on parole, sentenced to community service, etc. The idiots who stole my wheel-caps probably belongs here, as would somebody who killed their spouse because they abused them - it is not okay, but it doesn't make them unredeamably bad people.

Then there are the people who are just scum, the [mum who goes out to drink, leaving her toddler at home](http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2016/05/09/new-rochell...), the gang members, the people who commits rape, etc. Those just needs to be locked up, forever if possible.

It appear to me that both sides of this debate are only focusing on one of the sub groups and are trying to apply rules evenly, without first looking at the criminal. This will absolutely result in injustices, either by throwing a 17 year old in prison for life with out the possibility of parole for [killing her pimp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Kruzan) or releasing criminals who will go on to do more criminal acts.