Indeed, software is an enabling technology and is morally ambivalent just like any other tool. A machine tool can make a medical device to save lives or military device to destroy lives. At the heart of the issue is the intricate web of institutional mouse traps designed to convert low stakes issues into serious offenses. For example, a person who does does respond to a citation for expired vehicle tags is now ensured in a mechanism that turns a minor issue related to tax collection into a real criminal offense. It is up to humans to make these things so.

I brought up the Ask HN question mostly because I felt the lack of replies were a silent acknowledgement of the realities of most software endeavors. That they are not making the world a better place. Most aren't going out of their way to make it worse. Probably, it isn't even a consideration.

I don't think tools cancel themselves out, and I suspect that nothing "is just" anything.

Even if ideas like "the medium is the message" are partially true and then just partially applicable, that should give us pause when we try to cross out tools in our morality equations.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

I’m not sure what you mean by tools canceling themselves out. Are you talking about the balance between the good and bad things done with tools? If so, I do agree with you. Eg guns are tools that clearly don’t have a net benefit and controlling their manufacture and possession seems OK to me.

I was in a hurry when I typed my message, and re-reading it, I can see that it sounds a bit like babble.

I wanted to say that the tools we use impact how we behave, and that impact alone can have moral consequences. The "medium is the message" link I posted earlier talks about how the tools we use influence how we behave and experience the world. For example, if I want to tell a story, I might film a movie, or write a book, or record a radio program, or tell the story around a campfire. Each of these tools will impact the tellers, the receivers, and the story itself. This logic also applies to other more boring forms of communications. For example, using complicated software to say who gets to leave jail makes a difference in how the "tellers" and the "receivers" experience the world. To make a comparison, what if the jailer recorded information on a clipboard and paper calendar?

Is rehabilitation not the main goal in the USA? We call the places correctional facilities, and do other things that are ostensibly there to correct behavior and prevent recidivism. In fact, it seems like most of the things that prevent people from being successful are unintended side effects.

Here's a thought: Why do we permit private companies to not hire ex-cons? Why do you just get to decide that you don't want to hold up your civic responsibilities like that? Who wants to work with someone that used to be violent maniac, sleazy thief, or worse?

I agree about cost cutting measures and the criminal justice industrial complex. Still we have bigger issues around crime and reconciliation that prevent us from making progress. To be honest, I have trouble understanding how we're going to change, unless the average person can live with someone ruining their life, then spending "only" a year or so in prison and moving on to be successful in a decent paying job.

We still find that outrageous in the US, and it's going to be very tough to make progress that way. It's not about making something "a goal", especially in a country like the US, it's about convincing the wealthy and powerful class to do anything at all about it and stop making it worse.

We pretend the goal is rehabilitation, but its obviously not.

I don't really think any justice system is actually putting rehabilitation first. Otherwise, you'd be sentenced to "until you get rehabilitated or no more than X years."

That's kinda what I'm saying. It's not all "pretend" either. It's a goal, just not one we're willing to devote any resources towards. It's worth pointing out the difference. We want ex-cons to get jobs, just not working with us. It's the "not my problem" culture that is the USA.

I don't think that example you gave is a flaw in the logic. We don't know when people are rehabilitated, and there's reasons for having minimum sentences, whether you agree with them or not.

The greater issue in my opinion is that we do a bunch of stuff to create this illusion of safety for the public (and businesses), and we're not willing to budge to give people a chance. We very reluctantly pass laws that clear some peoples records if they're young enough and haven't done anything so terrible... and that's if you're lucky.

Disenfranchisement should be an exception for people that are likely highly-dysfunctional, not a general purpose solution. A new despised underclass to place a substantial percentage of the population. Seems dystopian to me.