Please don't post this sort of internet cowboy comment here. "I would not object to your summary execution" is not curious conversation, it's inflated rhetoric that will only provoke worse from others.
Edit: Also, it looks like you've only been commenting on HN for the purposes of ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, it's against the rules, and we ban such accounts. Please review the guidelines.
Honest belief is not sufficient for a good HN comment. Inflated rhetoric and flamebait can just as easily be "honest belief" as anything else. In fact they're easier that way, since then one can feel satisfied with oneself as one breaks the rules. It's the rules that matter, though, so please follow them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That includes not using HN primarily for ideological or political battle any more.
Can you kindly clarify what exactly constitutes "inflated rhetoric and flamebait" and how to distinguish it from what I see in this case as a statement on the value or lack thereof of human life? Can the subject be discussed without it falling into this category?
Preface: This all seems wildly off-topic since there's absolutely nothing in throwaway998662's post to suggest that he is a violent offender.
> I'd like to express a controversial opinion.
The opinion that follows this line is basically the fundamental guiding principle of the US's undeniably beyond broken justice system.
Outside of extremely liberal social enclaves the view that violent criminals should be locked up is probably one of the least controversial views on US criminal justice reform.
The view that violent criminals are not worth defending is so uncontroversial that even prison reform activists almost always preface their appeals with statistics about the huge number of non-violent offenders, as if to say: "yes, we at least aren't breaking the conventional view that Violent Offenders Are Bad".
> And in my eyes it is these choices which dehumanize them.
Bottom line: Does it really matter how you feel? I care about the safety of innocent people, including myself and my family. You can feel like violent prisoners are subhuman, that's fine. But insisting on institutions that net out your retribution -- even at the expense of reducing recidivism and saving future victims of violent crimes -- isn't that a tad selfish?
It's entirely consistent to both feel that violent criminals are subhuman and also realize that crafting institutions which treat them as such is net harmful to the rest of society.
If we were optimizing for reducing harm to innocent people, then we would in fact summarily execute violent criminals who are guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. My point was not about retribution, but exactly the opposite - optimizing for the safety of innocent people without regard for the humanity of violent criminals.
I did go on to suggest reforms and a model in Japan, which has very low crime and recidivism rates, especially when controlling for population density.
Edit: It seems we agree that the US system is broken. We just disagree on how to fix it. To elaborate, I think the main problem in the penal system is that prisoners are allowed to freely associate, share experiences, and form a culture. This should under no circumstances be permitted. It is this culture which gives people ideas about what sort of criminal they will become once they leave the system. Instead, if we do insist on giving people a second chance, they should effectively be reprogrammed. With every aspect of their routine controlled in such a manner as to produce compliant, law-abiding citizens to re-integrate into society.
