Does this view also not presuppose that all prisoners have exhibited anti-social behavior? I think we can both say that this is not the case. Although, prisons tend to somewhat separate the two populations.
I also suppose that others are more habitually and fundamentally anti-social. These people are not worth the effort of trying to 'save'. The brains have literally been wired for this behavior[over the course of many years]. They must be removed from society.
There are also those somewhere in between natural-born killer and 'busted for pot'. These people are responsible for their own personal choices. If they keep making bad choices of their own volition I have no compassion for them. [I say this from first hand experience dealing with a close relative who is a lifelong fuck-up.]
1. People differ vastly in their innate ability to follow societal rules.
2. The justice system is able to distinguish between people who make simple mistakes, and people who are unable to follow society rules.
3. The above is a big factor in sentencing.
While there is evidence that some aspects of behavior are innate, there is also a huge literature linking the environment a person is raised in, and their tendency towards crime. Furthermore, sentencing is generally extremely inconsistent by any standards, so it is very unlikely that sentencing would fit your criteria for being lenient to the right people. Finally, it's hard to think of sentencing criteria that fit the criteria you propose, and are also objective.
With that said, I have a few specific points.
> Prison is society's recourse for anti-social behavior
Lets speak objectively. Prison is a punishment that is forced upon some people who are found guilty of breaking some law. Many laws exist without thought for "social" behavior.
> Does it have to be a violent and horrible place? No. The residents tend to make it that.
Some residents make it that. Other residents have little to no "social" means of preventing or defending themselves against it.
> I am against pampering in anyway, with my tax dollars, people whom I've had to remove from proper society...for anti-social behavior.
Its funny that you use the word "pampering" when the alternative we are discussing is torture.
Nonetheless, this is the easiest point at which I can find common ground with you. Would you, rather than pay with your tax dollars for "pampering" prisoners, pay for educating prisoners so that our GDP grows? If there were ways to measure that GDP increased because we educated and enabled certain prisoners, would you gripe less?
> Prison is supposed to be a deterrent.
I've always heard that its supposed to be for rehabilitation. But, again, lets speak to the reality rather than the ideal: Prison is obviously not an effective deterrent.
> These people don't require reform. They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on.
What evidence do you have that people who don't need reform are typically leniently sentenced?
Banishment or death? Really? You do realize that pretty much any inventor or programmer of note in the US--the folks on whose shoulders all of us stand--are likely guilty of several "anti-social" actions?
Prisons, as implemented, are a bad answer to a stupid question.
Prison is supposed to be a deterrent. My biggest gripe is that I have to pay for it at all. I support banishment or death.