Being rehabilitated in a place where you have no freedom is generally not a reward. Working on yourself is hard and often painful. By this logic, getting clean is a reward to substance abuse disorder so we shouldn’t offer programs to substance abuse disorder sufferers to get them clean. But we know that not offering these programs practically guarantees continued suffering.

Additionally, the notion that there isn’t enough social programs to go around is a lie. There most certainly is enough social programs to go around, but our elected officials in America want to bolster the ultra wealthy and the mega corps instead. This is an artificial scarcity mindset that tries to make us pull each other down.

>By this logic, getting clean is a reward to substance abuse disorder so we shouldn’t offer programs to substance abuse disorder sufferers to get them clean.

Is your help getting clean only offered to substance abusers that assaulted another person? If so, you might see why someone who is addicted, wants but can't afford help, and who hasn't assaulted someone might not appreciate the help only going to those who have assaulted another.

If the help is offered to everyone who needs it, then the logic wouldn't apply.

>Additionally, the notion that there isn’t enough social programs to go around is a lie.

Where did I suggest such? I pointed out that there isn't enough purely from volunteering, meaning you'll have to spend money. I specifically pointed out that money could be spend buying more.

>and money is spent buying more labor.

Right there. My argument is that the money spent on buying more help follows the same issue. Spending money to help someone who committed a crime that you wouldn't spend to help them if they hadn't is not a widely agreeable position.

>Spending money to help someone who committed a crime that you wouldn't spend to help them if they hadn't is not a widely agreeable position.

It seems to me that doing so is a great idea. Firstly, given that these folks have (presumably so, but many folks plead guilty to crimes they have not committed, which is a travesty, but beyond the scope of this comment) committed a crime is pretty clear proof that they are having issues integrating into society.

Secondly, except for those who commit violent crimes (a minority of inmates), most folks will be released at some point.

Once those folks are released, they are now responsible for taking care of themselves economically and living in society. If we continue doing what we do now, by not giving them tools and skills to reintegrate into society and stigmatizing them for life, we severely limit their ability to live as productive members of society.

This has a negative effect on society (in that these folks are being actively discriminated against and shut out from many decent jobs) and limits the productivity and economic output of these people in performing jobs compatible with society.

Those are huge negatives for all of us. We're reducing economic output, creating pariahs and increasing the possibility of recidivism, which costs society more when those folks re-offend and are then re-incarcerated.

As such, I posit that rehabilitation along with reducing/removing the stigma of a felony conviction would increase both economic output and societal well-being.

And IMHO those benefits far outweigh how much you (or anyone else) wants to stick it to those dirty criminals.

>And IMHO those benefits far outweigh how much you (or anyone else) wants to stick it to those dirty criminals.

To clarify, I'm explaining why it would be unpopular. I'm not saying I personally agree with it. Please try to not conflate the argument with the person.

Many people aren't great at seeing long term or higher order effects. I'm explaining the immediate visibility problem, where someone is told that more help is provided for criminals than non-criminals. That the long term effects are worth it doesn't work well to convince people whose views are short term. We can see many government problems resulting from prioritizing short term reasoning.

Take the war on drugs. People see drugs, think "I should ban it so my kids won't be hooked on drugs." They don't think of the long term effects of a war on drug, and as a result we have our modern day war on drugs with all the harm it has brought us.

I'm sure this is true in the US, but this is a problem with the US prison system and the extremely strange system of using volunteers. In many places (Scandinavia, Germany, etc.) the people who help rehabilitate are hired by the state and the main reason for prison is rehabilitation first, punishment second.

To clarify, I was giving an example of both volunteering and hiring. Hiring someone doesn't change the economics of it, maybe even making it worse because you now have the state spending someone on a law breaker. Does it spend as much money to hire help for those who don't break the law who could benefit from the services offered?

The real main difference is when people stop viewing prison as being for punishment, but that goes back to the original question of why is rehabilitation incompatible with punishment. If prison is seen as being for rehabilitation and containment for safety while rehabilitating then the comparison is different (though ideally the services offered shouldn't be better than those offered to people who follow the law).

I believe the biggest differentiators are inherited from the fact that many countries who aim for rehabilitation first are also countries with free access to the kind of help many people incarcerated might need: free access to a psychiatrist or doctor, anger management therapy, educational help, etc. So not only are most of the money already earmarked for this but the extra it does costs to offer the help to inmates that aren't allowed to leave the prison to access these services are likely less than the cost of a punishment-first system. The lower recidivism rate added with the fact that these systems also rarely label people as former inmates, which often would block access to well-paid jobs that pay more taxes, must be a lot cheaper but... I can't be arsed to look it up.

As an example from around here (Denmark) if someone want to hire a person they do not by default know that this is a former inmate and they will only have access to this information if the job somehow is related to the crime committed in the past. You could ask the job applicant to bring a form from the police but if the sentence is unrelated to the job (or a set amount of years have gone past if it is a lesser crime) the form will be completely blank. Only related crimes will be shown.

All in all I believe that such a system is also punishment (few like to be locked up) but this rehalibation-first-system will punish everyone else less in the long run.