Some people will never change, but the discussion whether government's priorities are to prevent or punish crime is an important one.
hm... unfortunately I have never done this post on English, so I will give you a deepL translation
Sorry if this is long or a bit off-topic, but it is something important. If you don't want to read it, just skip, the whole post is the translated text ;)
A large number of people around the world are in prison. However, the number of people serving a prison sentence varies greatly from country to country, and the number of inmates does not seem to be related to crime.
The sad record is held by the USA with 7.41 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants. In second place follows Russia with 5.32. 50th place, between Jamaica and Romania, Greenland with 1.77 inmates. The Netherlands with 1.23 is slightly above China with 1.20. And Germany makes it under the number one: with 0.97 prison inmates per 100,000 inhabitants.
But if the crime rate has almost nothing to do with the number of prison inmates, then what determines this rate?
Simply put, of course, the penal system of the respective country. Some of them differ drastically. But all punishment systems have one thing in common, and that is the function of punishment. I exclude political detentions. This is a very special topic - for one or two doctoral theses ;)
In principle, punishment should fulfil 4 functions: Preventing further acts, protecting society, reintegrating offenders into society and, even if this is often forgotten or hushed up: Revenge.
1. prevention of further offences
It is not difficult to understand that someone who is imprisoned does not commit any further acts, at least not during this time. But this is only a part of this function and even the smaller one. The greatest deterrent is the deterrent effect.
On the one hand, a person who has been in prison once will probably think twice about doing something that will get him back there.
On the other hand, the deterrent effect is of course also there for those who have not yet committed an act. Many a conscience has been helped by shooters to think that a stolen car is not much fun if you can see the road through bars instead of the steering wheel.
This function is often cited in the USA as the reason for the high rate of detainees. However, the effect seems very questionable. Especially those who are imprisoned according to a "three strikes" rule for small things may only become real criminals through prison. Contact with criminal heavyweights contributes to this, but in particular the stigma that often excludes an ex-prisoner from large parts of society, not least an earned income.
In an attempt in several US districts, the crime rate dropped after a large wave of dismissals (and higher admission hurdles).
2. protection of society
The primary function of incarceration is to prevent someone from falling victim to a crime. As much as deterrence may help, in the end there is always someone who will still commit further acts. In order not to increase the number of victims even further, these perpetrators are imprisoned for a very long time, sometimes until their death. So that the last act also remains the last act of this person.
At first this sounds exactly like "prevention of further acts", but the motivation, the reasoning is completely different. It must also be considered separately if one wants to justify a punishment and its appropriateness.
3. reintegration into society
This point is comparatively new. Throughout history people have been imprisoned to prevent further deeds (if they were not killed or chained to the galley). But using imprisonment to turn them back into "normal" people is a transformation of the notion that a prisoner is also a person and must be treated humanely - which includes giving him a second chance.
Last but not least, it is simply a question of cost: keeping someone behind bars is extremely expensive. So it's much cheaper to help him get out of jail again.
Of course, the ultimate goal of reducing the number of crimes plays an important role here as well.
4th revenge
Not officially present in modern (German) jurisprudence, revenge still plays a role not to be underestimated in the motive of imprisonment. This can be seen, for example, in the penalty framework. If a murderer has killed someone, does it really make up a decade in prison whether this happened quickly and painlessly or slowly and agonizingly? Dead is dead. And for "torture" alone no one sits for a decade. There it must go already completely badly, like in this case:
http://www.mittelbayerische.de/bayern/oberpfalz-nachrichten/weiden-trio-muss-fuer-folter-in-haft-21684-art1460427.htmlRevenge is the reason when one is of the opinion that it is the only way to reduce the victim's psychological suffering. This is then described as "a particularly harsh punishment". This is also often demanded as a lump sum for criminal offences such as child abuse, although in general this is not intended to protect the victims.