Do you support the idea of not executing repetitive murder offenders (the ones who can't be rehabilitated), but rather making them work in the uranium mines (or other 'workplaces')? The profits off their work would be reinvested in housing and health care by the state, and their cheap labor would make uranium more abundant, which would reduce the energy costs.
When someone is executed, their labor power is lost. Why not to use it and invest it in health care, housing, and cheaper energy prices? This way, the prisoners would cover their own expenses instead of the state paying for maintaining them, and on top of that produce additional surplus for the society.
i support rehabilitating criminals. nobody is born a criminal, nobody deserves to work in a horrific mine environment for no pay.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36367579]i support rehabilitating criminals. nobody is born a criminal, nobody deserves to work in a horrific mine environment for no pay.[/QUOTE]
I support rehabilitating murder-charged criminals too. But some murder-charged criminals can't be rehabilitated (ex: repetitive offenders), and have to be locked away from the society, regardless whether they were born criminals or not, as to prevent them from murdering more people. Why can't they work and contribute to the society by increasing funds for housing, health care, education, science and technology, and reducing energy prices, instead of the state having to pay for them sitting in a cell?
And these criminals would be paid. The more they would work, the more they would get paid. It's just that their wage rate would be very low.
I don't support slavery in any form.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36367754]I don't support slavery in any form.[/QUOTE]
Why?
In case of repetitive murder criminals, killing them would also destroy their labor power. Simply keeping them in a cell has a high opportunity cost, and puts a burden on the society. They could benefit the society by working in a profitable manner, with the profits being reinvested in housing, health care, education, science and technology. On top of that, they would cover their own expenses.
Japan already has almost an identical system, for example. It resulted in cheaper commodity prices.
I don't think there's any good moral justification for forced labor (or any other initiation of force against an individual.) If it's wrong for me to put someone in chains and force them to work for me on an individual level, it has to be wrong at the state level too. Moral principles have to apply universally, if initiation of force is wrong for one man, it has to be wrong for every man. You can't just arbitrarily give the executioner or prison warden their very own set of moral principles that don't apply to everyone else, a majority vote can't simply override universal moral principles.
[QUOTE=Noble;36367938]I don't think there's any good moral justification for forced labor (or any other initiation of force against an individual.) If it's wrong for me to put someone in chains and force them to work for me on an individual level, it has to be wrong at the state level too. Moral principles have to apply universally, if initiation of force is wrong for one man, it has to be wrong for every man. You can't just arbitrarily give the executioner or prison warden their very own set of moral principles that don't apply to everyone else, a majority vote can't simply override universal moral principles.[/QUOTE]
"Moral principles have to apply universally" - No. They have to be applied in an utilitarian manner. If the moral benefit outweighs the moral cost, the action should be taken.
I fully support forcing repetitive murder offenders who couldn't be rehabilitated to work as long as it benefits the society, by providing cheaper and higher quality health care, cheaper college and university education, lower housing prices, higher economic growth (as a result of surplus investments in technology and capital).
[QUOTE=GenPol;36367635]I support rehabilitating murder-charged criminals too. But some murder-charged criminals can't be rehabilitated (ex: repetitive offenders), and have to be locked away from the society, regardless whether they were born criminals or not, as to prevent them from murdering more people. Why can't they work and contribute to the society by increasing funds for housing, health care, education, science and technology, and reducing energy prices, instead of the state having to pay for them sitting in a cell?
And these criminals would be paid. The more they would work, the more they would get paid. It's just that their wage rate would be very low.[/QUOTE]
well you've raised an interesting point for sure, i would support prisoners providing to society through work in a rehabilitative form, one that would not cause them stress. however, the ends can never justify the means.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36368139]well you've raised an interesting point for sure, i would support prisoners providing to society through work in a rehabilitative form, one that would not cause them stress. however, the ends can never justify the means.[/QUOTE]
The ends always justify the means, as long as the moral benefit produced by the end is higher than the moral cost of the means. As long as the moral benefit is higher than the moral cost, the action should be taken.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368060]"Moral principles have to apply universally" - No. They have to be applied in an utilitarian manner. If the moral benefit outweighs the moral cost, the action should be taken.[/QUOTE]
With universal moral principles, taking it as axiomatic that what's right for one man has to be right for everyone else, and what's wrong has to be wrong for everyone too, you get a completely consistent system. With these utilitarian ethics you have inconsistencies and contradictions. It's suddenly okay to trample over someone's human rights as long as provides enough benefit to everyone else? Would you still hold your utilitarian beliefs if it were you who were forced into labor for other people's benefit?
[QUOTE=Noble;36368172]With universal moral principles, taking it as axiomatic that what's right for one man has to be right for everyone else, and what's wrong has to be wrong for everyone too, you get a completely consistent system. With these utilitarian ethics you have inconsistencies and contradictions. It's suddenly okay to trample over someone's human rights as long as provides enough benefit to everyone else? Would you still hold your utilitarian beliefs if it were you who were forced into labor for other people's benefit?[/QUOTE]
"Would you still hold your utilitarian beliefs if it were you who were forced into labor for other people's benefit?" - To begin with, I wouldn't murder other people, and then, after an attempt to rehabilitate me murder some more people.
"With universal moral principles, taking it as axiomatic that what's right for one man has to be right for everyone else, and what's wrong has to be wrong for everyone too, you get a completely consistent system." - It's highly inconsistent. No rational decision can be taking by having fixed and universal codes. As long as the moral benefit of something outweighs its moral cost, the action should be taken.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368194]"Would you still hold your utilitarian beliefs if it were you who were forced into labor for other people's benefit?" - To begin with, I wouldn't murder other people, and then, after an attempt to rehabilitate me murder some more people.[/quote]
Putting aside the whole argument of proving you committed the murder before subjecting you to punishment, if you're unable to hold your beliefs consistently (i.e. including when you're the one being subjected to forced labor) then it's not a belief you can hold rationally.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368194]"With universal moral principles, taking it as axiomatic that what's right for one man has to be right for everyone else, and what's wrong has to be wrong for everyone too, you get a completely consistent system." - It's highly inconsistent. No rational decision can be taking by having fixed and universal codes. As long as the moral benefit of something outweighs its moral cost, the action should be taken.[/QUOTE]
How is it inconsistent? The rules are the same for everyone in that system so there can't be inconsistencies.
On what logical basis does a majority have the right to impose it's will on the minority in utilitarianism? It seems you're just merely asserting that they have this right
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368168]The ends always justify the means, as long as the moral benefit produced by the end is higher than the moral cost of the means. As long as the moral benefit is higher than the moral cost, the action should be taken.[/QUOTE]
I don't see much of a moral benefit here. just the knowledge that your government is run by slavers, your goods are made in blood and smoked out with depression, your people are vindictive, and that a doctor failing to help you is a good cue to totally fuck the Hippocratic Oath sideways.
I see no good coming from this, especially not morally.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368168]The ends always justify the means, as long as the moral benefit produced by the end is higher than the moral cost of the means. As long as the moral benefit is higher than the moral cost, the action should be taken.[/QUOTE]
what do you mean moral benefit? there would be no 'moral' benefit to slave prison labour, only an industrial and monetary benefit. valuing the economy over your own citizens' well-being is an extremely disturbing concept.
not to mention the fact that this would only apply to people who serve a lifetime in prison, as if they come out of prison after only 10-20 years of doing extremely hard manual labour, they're almost certain to come out and re-offend in much more serious manners. if the benefit from this were scientifically proven to rehabilitate and benefit society by lowering crime and boosting citizen happiness, i would be all for it but finding that from the conclusion of labour just doesn't seem viable.
the only thing I can see coming from the knowledge that the economy is fueled with undeserved death would be increasingly apathetic citizens.
"sure, my job, my home, and my life are only made possible with people being forced into death-camps, but who cares? that's how it's always been. and it's not that'll ever happen to me!"
Not only is the idea of using slave labour on the threat of death (which in the other thread you stated explicitly that you are perfectly ok with this concept) to save some money on a handful of criminals utterly reprehensible, but I doubt it would even be effective at that.
A process that has death as a part of it will need the kind of due process that the death penalty has, which is the entire reason why the death penalty is so much more expensive than life in prison.
On top of that, you would need to spend even more money on ensuring that the prisoners don't get abused for financial gain (as if slavery isn't already abuse) since abuse would be very possible in a system like this. Not to mention the costs of even establishing this kind of system.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368405]Not only is the idea of using slave labour on the threat of death (which in the other thread you stated explicitly that you are perfectly ok with this concept) to save some money on a handful of criminals utterly reprehensible, but I doubt it would even be effective at that.
A process that has death as a part of it will need the kind of due process that the death penalty has, which is the entire reason why the death penalty is so much more expensive than life in prison.
On top of that, you would need to spend even more money on ensuring that the prisoners don't get abused for financial gain (as if slavery isn't already abuse) since abuse would be very possible in a system like this. Not to mention the costs of even establishing this kind of system.[/QUOTE]
"A process that has death as a part of it will need the kind of due process that the death penalty has, which is the entire reason why the death penalty is so much more expensive than life in prison."
Doesn't apply to forced labor, as it would keep on producing economic value.
"On top of that, you would need to spend even more money on ensuring that the prisoners don't get abused for financial gain (as if slavery isn't already abuse) since abuse would be very possible in a system like this. Not to mention the costs of even establishing this kind of system."
That's like saying that business is impossible because it would cost too much to make sure that the workers wouldn't get abused, plus the costs of establishing a business.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;36368397]the only thing I can see coming from the knowledge that the economy is fueled with undeserved death would be increasingly apathetic citizens.
"sure, my job, my home, and my life are only made possible with people being forced into death-camps, but who cares? that's how it's always been. and it's not that'll ever happen to me!"[/QUOTE]
Yeah, except we're talking about the people who murdered after being rehabilitated. One can simply avoid this fate by not murdering people. Your posts are filled with emotional fallacies, and represent no argumentative value.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
On top of that, Japan already has a similar system, and it works well for them.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368168]The ends always justify the means, as long as the moral benefit produced by the end is higher than the moral cost of the means. As long as the moral benefit is higher than the moral cost, the action should be taken.[/QUOTE]
You're in a San Francisco. A [URL="http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium/san-francisco-trolley-car-sonja-anderson.jpg"]trolley[/URL] is thundering down a hill and a madman has jammed the controls so it can't be stopped until it reaches the bottom of the hill. Up ahead, tied to the tracks, there are five innocent people. The trolley is going to run them over. However, you can pull a lever to switch the tracks. On the other track, there is one person tied there. If you pull the lever, only one person will die instead of five. What do you do?
You're a doctor in a third world country. You have five patients all in dire need of organ transplants. They're all histocompatible and everything but they all need different organs - one needs kidneys, one needs a liver, one needs a heart etc. They're all going to die soon because the hospital is going to close and you won't be able to keep them alive. Your receptionist happens to be completely histocompatible with all your patients. If you kill her you can operate straight away and give all five people the organs they need. If you kill the receptionist, only one person will die instead of five? What do you do?
You can tweak the above scenarios around a lot - the one person tied to the track is a child, the five people are paedophiles, the trolley can be stopped if you push a fat man in front of it instead of pulling a lever, the receptionist is a convicted felon etc... the point stands is that the "moral benefit produced by the end" is not always higher than the "moral cost of the means". You cannot run a purely utilitarian society. It's bad for the soul.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368472]
Doesn't apply to forced labor, as it would keep on producing economic value.
[/quote]
No it wouldn't. I don't think you understand the concept of net profit. If due process and other costs associated with ensuring the lack of abuse in this slavery system (lol) end up costing more than what is gained from the slave labor than you are NOT producing any economic value.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368472]
That's like saying that business is impossible because it would cost too much to make sure that the workers wouldn't get abused, plus the costs of establishing a business.
[/QUOTE]
You cannot compare a business to slavery.
Workers aren't held at figurative gunpoint to work or die.
[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;36368582]You're in a San Francisco. A [URL="http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium/san-francisco-trolley-car-sonja-anderson.jpg"]trolley[/URL] is thundering down a hill and a madman has jammed the controls so it can't be stopped until it reaches the bottom of the hill. Up ahead, tied to the tracks, there are five innocent people. The trolley is going to run them over. However, you can pull a lever to switch the tracks. On the other track, there is one person tied there. If you pull the lever, only one person will die instead of five. What do you do?
You're a doctor in a third world country. You have five patients all in dire need of organ transplants. They're all histocompatible and everything but they all need different organs - one needs kidneys, one needs a liver, one needs a heart etc. They're all going to die soon because the hospital is going to close and you won't be able to keep them alive. Your receptionist happens to be completely histocompatible with all your patients. If you kill her you can operate straight away and give all five people the organs they need. If you kill the receptionist, only one person will die instead of five? What do you do?
You can tweak the above scenarios around a lot - the one person tied to the track is a child, the five people are paedophiles, the trolley can be stopped if you push a fat man in front of it instead of pulling a lever, the receptionist is a convicted felon etc... the point stands is that the "moral benefit produced by the end" is not always higher than the "moral cost of the means". You cannot run a purely utilitarian society. It's bad for the soul.[/QUOTE]
"You cannot run a purely utilitarian society. It's bad for the soul." - There's no soul. The old morals, norms and traditions can be replaced with the utilitarian ones over the course of social development.
Also:
1st case:
I calculate the most likely number of deaths in the scenario, and choose the one which minimizes them.
2nd case:
To begin with, I would have to be living in an utilitarian society with no static laws, but only the ones based on the cost-benefit analysis.
"If you kill the receptionist, only one person will die instead of five? What do you do?"
If the assumptions I've provided are true, I perform the first action.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368613]No it wouldn't. I don't think you understand the concept of net profit. If due process and other costs associated with ensuring the lack of abuse in this slavery system (lol) end up costing more than what is gained from the slave labor than you are NOT producing any economic value.
You cannot compare a business to slavery.
Workers aren't held at figurative gunpoint to work or die.[/QUOTE]
"You cannot compare a business to slavery." - Never did. I've simply compared ensuring the abuse costs. You're strawmanning.
The government could easily chose a profitable arrangement of labor and capital for the prisoners' workplaces.
On top of that, the costs of operating such a penal labor system would be less than the income (and therefore generate profit) for a wide range of industries.
The profits would be reinvested in health care, and save thousands of lives.
I'm OK with enslaving repetitive murder offenders who couldn't be rehabilitated to save thousands of lives.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368675]
1st case:
I calculate the most likely number of deaths in the scenario, and choose the one which minimizes them.
[/QUOTE]
Ok then. I assume you are good at math so here's a few numbers I'm going to throw at you.
Zero death penalty = zero deaths causes by death penalty.
And don't tell me that your system isn't the death penalty with a new wrapper. If there is a penalty for refusing to work, and the penalty happens to be death, then it is a death penalty.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368675]On top of that, the costs of operating such a penal labor system would be less than the income (and therefore generate profit) for a wide range of industries.
The profits would be reinvested in health care, and save thousands of lives.
I'm OK with enslaving repetitive murder offenders who couldn't be rehabilitated to save thousands of lives.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand how much due process costs for every single individual prisoner that you would put in a system like this.
What could you possibly make them do that would earn back enough money to even scratch at the deficit due process will cause?
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368730]Ok then. I assume you are good at math so here's a few numbers I'm going to throw at you.
Zero death penalty = zero deaths causes by death penalty.
And don't tell me that your system isn't the death penalty with a new wrapper. If there is a penalty for refusing to work, and the penalty happens to be death, then it is a death penalty.[/QUOTE]
No, it isn't death penalty. And the lives of the murderers who recommitted murdering offenses several times are less worthy than those of the normal citizens who have contributed to the society more than damaged it.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368730]Ok then. I assume you are good at math so here's a few numbers I'm going to throw at you.
Zero death penalty = zero deaths causes by death penalty.
And don't tell me that your system isn't the death penalty with a new wrapper. If there is a penalty for refusing to work, and the penalty happens to be death, then it is a death penalty.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I don't think you understand how much due process costs for every single individual prisoner that you would put in a system like this.
What could you possibly make them do that would earn back enough money to even scratch at the deficit due process will cause?[/QUOTE]
"I don't think you understand how much due process costs for every single individual prisoner that you would put in a system like this.
What could you possibly make them do that would earn back enough money to even scratch at the deficit due process will cause?"
In the course of less than a year of labor they could pay back the costs easily. The example is the penal labor system in Japan, Soviet Union and China.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368759]No, it isn't death penalty. And the lives of the murderers who recommitted murdering offenses several times are less worthy than those of the normal citizens who have contributed to the society more than damaged it.[/QUOTE]
Again this isn't about how much you think a murder's life is worth. It's about how much it costs to ensure innocent life isn't caught into the system.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368795]Again this isn't about how much you think a murder's life is worth. It's about how much it costs to ensure innocent life isn't caught into the system.[/QUOTE]
These costs would be paid back by the profit their labor would make, which would then be reinvested in health care, education, housing, etc. Japan is a very good example of a similar system.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368675]"You cannot run a purely utilitarian society. It's bad for the soul." - There's no soul. The old morals, norms and traditions can be replaced with the utilitarian ones over the course of social development.
Also:
1st case:
I calculate the most likely number of deaths in the scenario, and choose the one which minimizes them.
2nd case:
To begin with, I would have to be living in an utilitarian society with no static laws, but only the ones based on the cost-benefit analysis.
"If you kill the receptionist, only one person will die instead of five? What do you do?"
If the assumptions I've provided are true, I perform the first action.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
"You cannot compare a business to slavery." - Never did. I've simply compared ensuring the abuse costs. You're strawmanning.
The government could easily chose a profitable arrangement of labor and capital for the prisoners' workplaces.
On top of that, the costs of operating such a penal labor system would be less than the income (and therefore generate profit) for a wide range of industries.
The profits would be reinvested in health care, and save thousands of lives.
I'm OK with enslaving repetitive murder offenders who couldn't be rehabilitated to save thousands of lives.[/QUOTE]
would you kill 100 people for a great economic benefit, or kill 1 person for no economic benefit? it seems awfully similar to what you're saying here.
and it may work 'well' for japan, but their countries is amongst the most economically focused in the world; which leads to high suicide rates, incredibly high rates of stress and some of the most drastic poverty lines in the first world.
at the end of the day, i care about everybody's happiness. there's no such thing as someone that 'can't be rehabilitated', if that's the case then try harder. and harder. until eventually he is happy with the environment he's placed in and can live free; if they mentally cannot be rehabilitated the chances are they have a mental deficiency and should be placed accordingly in a care home for the rest of their life, or until their condition stabilizes.
criminals tend to be the victims of their own crime, nobody specifically wants to be a repeat murderer, and you shouldn't punish them because of the environment they grew up into and were conditioned by. this isn't a case of killing people to save more, it's about torturing someone for the rest of their life for your own selfish benefit. sure i'd like to have higher pay, a bit more money, a nicer house, but i wouldn't sacrifice [I]ANYBODY[/i]'s happiness, regardless of who they were. rapist, murderer whatever, you should love all on this planet and not divert your love for a select few.
policies like this lead to vast amounts of corruption and a stress on economic output for prisons, if a government relies on the industrial output of a prison for several years then they will come to expect that, if however by chance the crime rate is drastically reduced in those years, and less prisoners are producing, it is likely that the government will either reduce funding for prisons or pressure them to carry out the same amount of output; which is where desperation begins and prisons begin to take matters into their own hands.
you cannot have strict regulations on stuff like this because it's all behind closed doors anyway, there's absolutely no telling what happens in a prison unless you work there or go there yourself, transparency can be dangerous too.
it's not as if countries in the world need more economic output anyway, what you're suggesting is a system that will only benefit (in absolutely MINOR amounts, how many repeat murderers are there in your country?) the people who do not need benefitting (governments, politicians, corporation owners) and not the average law abiding citizen anyway, and it is unlikely that with the way governments are run that the money would be put back into society to prevent further crimes from happening (for example, making environments a much nicer place for people to grow up in, and taking more care for citizens to ensure that they do not grow to be criminals, instead leading happy lives)
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368818]These costs would be paid back by the profit their labor would make, which would then be reinvested in health care, education, housing, etc. Japan is a very good example of a similar system.[/QUOTE]
No they won't. I am telling you that the amount of money it costs to pay a number of legal workers to maintain due process in America will vastly outweigh any profit someone can achieve with manual labor.
It would take decades just to put someone into that system.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36368826]would you kill 100 people for a great economic benefit, or kill 1 person for no economic benefit? it seems awfully similar to what you're saying here.
and it may work 'well' for japan, but their countries is amongst the most economically focused in the world; which leads to high suicide rates, incredibly high rates of stress and some of the most drastic poverty lines in the first world.
at the end of the day, i care about everybody's happiness. there's no such thing as someone that 'can't be rehabilitated', if that's the case then try harder. and harder. until eventually he is happy with the environment he's placed in and can live free; if they mentally cannot be rehabilitated the chances are they have a mental deficiency and should be placed accordingly in a care home for the rest of their life, or until their condition stabilizes.
criminals tend to be the victims of their own crime, nobody specifically wants to be a repeat murderer, and you shouldn't punish them because of the environment they grew up into and were conditioned by. this isn't a case of killing people to save more, it's about torturing someone for the rest of their life for your own selfish benefit. sure i'd like to have higher pay, a bit more money, a nicer house, but i wouldn't sacrifice [I]ANYBODY[/i]'s happiness, regardless of who they were. rapist, murderer whatever, you should love all on this planet and not divert your love for a select few.
policies like this lead to vast amounts of corruption and a stress on economic output for prisons, if a government relies on the industrial output of a prison for several years then they will come to expect that, if however by chance the crime rate is drastically reduced in those years, and less prisoners are producing, it is likely that the government will either reduce funding for prisons or pressure them to carry out the same amount of output; which is where desperation begins and prisons begin to take matters into their own hands.
you cannot have strict regulations on stuff like this because it's all behind closed doors anyway, there's absolutely no telling what happens in a prison unless you work there or go there yourself, transparency can be dangerous too.
it's not as if countries in the world need more economic output anyway, what you're suggesting is a system that will only benefit (in absolutely MINOR amounts, how many repeat murderers are there in your country?) the people who do not need benefitting (governments, politicians, corporation owners) and not the average law abiding citizen anyway, and it is unlikely that with the way governments are run that the money would be put back into society to prevent further crimes from happening (for example, making environments a much nicer place for people to grow up in, and taking more care for citizens to ensure that they do not grow to be criminals, instead leading happy lives)[/QUOTE]
"would you kill 100 people for a great economic benefit, or kill 1 person for no economic benefit? it seems awfully similar to what you're saying here. "
The benefit in question isn't economic, but accounted only in terms of lives saved. It's OK to kill 10 people if it saves 1000.
"at the end of the day, i care about everybody's happiness. there's no such thing as someone that 'can't be rehabilitated', if that's the case then try harder."
All rehabilitation should stop after a repeated murder. After that, the person in question should work in labor camps.
"criminals tend to be the victims of their own crime, nobody specifically wants to be a repeat murderer,"
Regardless whether they are or not, they would still pay back the costs they have inflicted on the society by repeatedly murdering people.
"it's not as if countries in the world need more economic output anyway"
Yeah, don't mind the 3rd world, don't mind the absence of adequate free health care in the vast majority of the world's countries, including the developed ones.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368862]No they won't. I am telling you that the amount of money it costs to pay a number of legal workers to maintain due process in America will vastly outweigh any profit someone can achieve with manual labor.
It would take decades just to put someone into that system.[/QUOTE]
"I am telling you that the amount of money it costs to pay a number of legal workers to maintain due process in America will vastly outweigh any profit someone can achieve with manual labor."
Not the case in Japan. Don't see why it would be the case in the US. And it's also possible to select the prisoners with low due process costs. And on top of that, I think you overdramatize the due process costs as compared to the income that the forced labor would generate.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368882]Not the case in Japan. Don't see why it would be the case in the US.[/QUOTE]
Because it costs way more to do justice in America due to criminal population.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36368915]Because it costs way more to do justice in America due to criminal population.[/QUOTE]
It's the per prisoner cost that counts, not the aggregate cost.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368923]It's the per prisoner cost that counts, not the aggregate cost.[/QUOTE]
The system is bloated so it requires much more time for legal workers to completely carry out a case.
In the case of due process it can be very expensive and time consuming for it to be carried out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.