There's a reason they're called "correctional facilities". Unfortunately, they've become the opposite and we don't seem to care much about actually fixing anything.

Also, the entire system is built around "justice", not retribution. People should only be imprisoned for as long as necessary to repay their debt to society or until they can prove they're no longer a threat to society (e.g. they've reformed), whichever happens first.

Ok, I'll bite. How would an institution go about "correcting" human traffickers, organized crime members, serial murderers, serial rapists, or really anyone?

Seems to me if there is no real punishment, there is no deterrent keeping the person from doing it again as soon as they are released: "Oh wow, I trafficked women and all I got was a few years of psychotherapy in which all I had to do was smile and nod? That wasn't bad at all, I have no remorse, and I'll do it again, this time learning from my mistakes so I don't get caught!"

I don't think that it has to be a black or white issue. Some people likely cannot be rehabilitated because they are psychopaths, some because they are simply evil, etc. However, that doesn't mean that there are not many people who could be reformed.

For example, John Newton was a slave trader before finding God, becoming an abolitionist, and writing "Amazing Grace".

The Apostle Paul was at least an accessory to murder before his conversion.

I'm sure that there are examples outside of Christianity. That's just my background so its what I know.

Except most data shows that punishment is not an effective deterrent.

I'm curious why "whichever happens first", rather than "whichever takes longer". (My gut reaction is probably biased towards "whichever takes longer" with a crime-appropriate level of "prove".)