"There are five main underlying justifications of criminal punishment considered briefly here: retribution; incapacitation; deterrence; rehabilitation and reparation" [1].
Deterrence and retribution are the punitive elements. To my knowledge, no model that excludes any one element works.
> Other cultures seem to find success with more rehabilitation-focused approaches
The problem is we're in the middle. Not as harsh as Middle Eastern and Asian models. (Counterfactual: Latin America.) Not as rehabilitative as the Nordic models. (Counterfactual: Europe.) We're good at incapacitating criminals.
[1] https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justi...
this success is measureable. Outcomes in terms of overall recidivism, and in total societal cost, just as in the case of universal health care, so great as to make the American disposition appear not just irrational but willfully counterproductive.
This country in its current formulation appears incapable of ever escaping the gravity of feverish Christian moralizing and the correlated vicious contempt for objective truth and measurable outcome.
I realise that Christianity in the USA _means_ (to the average American) something almost unrecognisable to me as an Englishman. But if we're talking about punitive prison systems don't you think that's a little harsh considering a central tenet is the forgiveness of sins.
On the contrary, it sounds like Christian morality would be helpful here; the Bible is pretty pointed about loving everyone (including enemies), forgiveness, and, y'know, specifically helping prisoners[0].
[0] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A...
If it's a black box, nobody can fan outrage that it's not doing {insert moral but maladaptive thing}.
In the US, I believe the overwhelming preference of the public (the "obvious layman view") is that prison should be punitive. Other cultures seem to find success with more rehabilitation-focused approaches.