For a well-functioning prison system it is.

your snark is obscuring any point that you might be trying to make here...

What snark? These are the goals of the USA prison system.

Even if you're into the pure punishment angle, prolonged isolation is a factory for mental instability. And you're releasing most of these people back into society at some point.

This is an absolutely bizarre take. Even if you’re all for the pure punitive aspect of it, why would you not want to improve society and the economics? Are you Kim Jong Un or something? I’m genuinely confused how any reasonable argument can be made here, regardless on your stance towards the prisoners themselves.

They didn’t say they support the status quo.

Then they should elaborate on their point because their comment sounds like they do.

I interpreted it as snarking on the current state of affairs. By and large, in the US the point of the prison system is *not* rehabilitation or providing benefit to society. It's about lining the pockets of wealthy people and keeping the downtrodden in that position. And that sucks, but stating it as a matter of fact doesn't mean one supports it.

That's definitely how I interpreted it also, but the comment definitely buries the lede at least

The US is really big on making sure criminals never stop paying for their crimes.

Improving society in a way that helps anyone who hasn’t earned it is contrary to the goals way too many voters.

I'm hoping the comment you're replying to was sardonic.

If you're a retributivist, you believe the point of prison is to punish the guilty. Therefore you will be uncomfortable with the idea of prison as a means to "improve society or economics".

Kant:

> [Punishment] can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society. It must always be inflicted upon him only because he has committed a crime. For a human being can never be treated merely as a means to the purposes of another or be put among the objects of rights to things

And the country we're talking about is run by retributivists, and even further, whatever that is called - people who just want to see other people punished.

But if I’m a retributivist, why do I want to be less efficient with money and also make MY life worse, just to inflict more punishment on some prisoner? That just genuinely makes no sense. I can understand the logic of wanting to punish them for the sake of it, but I would also want to be efficient about it, and not make my life worse in the process.

You don't want to be "less efficient with money" or "make your life worse". Factors like that don't come into it. Neither does "making society better," "reforming the guilty party," or deterrence. And "inflicting more punishment" isn't the goal either -- that's just cruelty.

The basic point is simple. If a person commits a crime, they should be punished in proportion to the crime. Full stop. Within that simple framework, efficiency is fine, but it shouldn't be the goal.

That’s precisely what it’s for.

Make take a reflecting break.

Ah, you're thinking of the American prison system. We were talking more about a prison system that is functional and beneficial.

Easy mistake to make, I know.