Ideally, a much higher-tech system would have highly tailored solutions for incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. (There should be no considerations for "retribution".)

I'm conflicted on whether incapacitation should continue only until rehabilitation is achieved, or also until restoration is completed.

Prison is just a really blunt instrument for incapacitation, and sentences are a really blunt way to predict how long it would take to be rehabilitated.

> Ideally, a much higher-tech system would have highly tailored solutions for incapacitation

This is pretty interesting. If a person could be anesthetized for the entire sentence and then revived at the end of their period of incapacity, would that be acceptable?

Of course not, that would render rehabilitation impossible.

I'm confused by your use of the word incapacitation here. You don't mean incarceration?

I interpreted it as literally “remove the capacity (to continue committing crime)”. Incarceration is one means of achieving that, but possibly not the only, and I feel like the OP was trying to draw that distinction.

I don’t think they were meaning incapacitation as in rendered unconscious.

That's right, thank you. I didn't realize it wasn't commonly used in this context, and completely forgot about its other meaning. :) Yes, ideally the concept of "protecting society from the offender re-offending" should be narrowly tailored to only prevent those offenses, and only if those offenses present risk to surrounding society.

Oh, I understood "incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration" as a sequence of activities. Like after a period of incapacitation, rehabilitation is performed on the human and then restoration.

What types of rehabilitation activities would you suggest for SBF during incapacitation? Would it include job training for an alternative career since he is unlikely to be allowed a fiduciary role in the future? As I understood it, he had a great talent in video gaming.

Apologies, I intended incapacitation as not unconsciousness, but finding a narrowly-tailored way to prevent the offender from re-committing the crime, in order to protect society. Ultimately, rehabilitation is the answer on how to do that, but until rehabilitation is completed, some manner of incapacitation or restriction is necessary.

I don't know enough about SBF's crime, which is very complex. But for white collar crime in general that isn't wanton indiscriminate violence, imprisonment seems like it is inherently punitive and thus wasteful, unless it's in a place that is highly focused on rehabilitation (education, therapy, etc).

> a narrowly-tailored way to prevent the offender from re-committing the crime

Like having to stay in a special room without other people who might be victimized? That seems more humane than wearing restraints all the time.

I have no idea where you got "wearing restraints".

> Sincere question: in your ideal world, what would be done in this case?

Great question, and very hard. I don't really have a concrete answer, but generally speaking in my ideal world justice would focus on restoration to the victims. I concede that we may need some aspect of "punishment" to serve as a deterrent, but I think that punishment should benefit the victims, not the state. For example, stole $10k from somebody? Pay them back $25k. There should be no victimless crimes IMHO, and if "society" is the "victim" we should approach that one very skeptically and there should be very clear causation. For example, a dad who takes a few hits on a cannabis joint before bed is not "harming society" even though that has been the justification for draconian drug laws for decades.

I also fully concede that real life is going to be a lot messier and more nuanced than what I've captured, and that such a system would require a large mindshift from society in addition to just systemic reform. It may take a while to get there.

Disclaimer: If I actually had any ability to influence this I would want to spend a lot more time stuyding it and examining current research/science, and it's quite possible my opinion would adjust based on evidence.

I think part of the issue and what the judge didn't like is he doesn't seem to have any remorse.

Sure, and that certainly means any rehabilitation would be harder, and we'd be right to be skeptical of the results of that rehabilitation (as in, is he just pretending to be rehabilitated).

SBF lost billions of dollars. How does one work to pay that all back, especially with his crap reputation?

If I had the answer to that I'd be a billionaire.

The difficulty of doing so doesn't obviate the necessity of doing so.

At worst, he works for the rest of his life with his wages heavily garnished. If he holds investments, he'd be required to liquidate and surrender some percentage of them periodically.

Of course, someone in his position could just live off his parents and not play ball. So you'd need a contingency for that. Maybe prison still does have a place, but only for people who refuse to even try to make amends for what they did?