Wikipedia[1] lays out a list of common justifications for imprisonment that feels accurate: rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. Different societies may prioritize each of those differently.

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest the US has gone long on the "retribution" angle in their approach to criminal justice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison#Theories_of_punishment_...

Something got left off the list, unless "retribution" is supposed to cover it. When people see crimes go unpunished, they form lynch mobs. An unsatisfied angry population is a dangerous thing to have.

That's exactly what "retribution" covers, a sense that justice has been done for the victims and the community.

Rehabilitation: should be obvious, nordic countries are well known for prioritizing this.

Deterrence: again obvious, as noted elsewhere imprisonment has been found to be a poor deterrent in studies but the concept remains as a political argument in favor of harsher sentencing.

Incapacitation: keeping the public safe by preventing dangerous individuals from having the ability to endanger others.

and Retribution, which we just discussed above.

> Rehabilitation: should be obvious, nordic countries are well known for prioritizing this.

Only on paper (or more accurately as a self delusion). E.g. Iceland still uses excessive solitary confinement, even though it has shown to have negative rehabilitating effects and is under every definition a form of torture. The fact that the Icelandic prison system still engages in torture suggests that they are still in the retribution camp of punishment.

I don’t know about the other Nordic countries but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear similar stories from there.

I often get the sense that people see retribution as inherently evil, barbaric, and unfit for civilization. That doesn't match up well with the prevention of lynch mobs. It's plainly evil and uncivilized to create conditions conducive to the formation of lynch mobs.

Just to be clear my intended point (and the judges point) was that the justice system is broken, not that punishment is a worthwhile goal.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. This is a noticeable drop into hell right here.

We don't need you to change your views but we do need you not to post like this. A more substantive, less aggressive way of making your point would be fine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There are plenty of crimes that are totally victimless for which we as a society "punish" people. I think you're right that the average person wants punishment for someone who has wronged them, but (for reasons only God knows) I think the average person also wants punishment for people that haven't wronged them at all, but just did something they think is immoral. I'll never forget seeing a neighbor call the cops on my friend who was smoking a joint in her own car. He only knew she was doing it because he was trespassing on her property. I couldn't believe someone would be such a dick to another person. I sure hope we can change cause what we do now is sick.

Sounds like that guy is a control freak. Some people are like that.

They don't seem to improve the world, when they do crap like this. :(

Most people are really shitty. Sadly I can’t think of any satisfactory solution for that problem and I’m not too hopeful that any solution is forthcoming.

No. It's because we possess empathy.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, let along generic ideological flamewar, which is the sort of hell we're trying to avoid here.

not for those who were wronged in the first place

Most offenses in the USA are nonviolent drug offenses. Do you think those people should get long prison sentences?

> not for those who were wronged in the first place

What a shitty and presumptuous assumption to make.

Implying people who disagree with you only do so because they are like criminals is not a very open mindset.