Here's the problem. I know that I would rather be dead than locked up forever. Actually I would take death over a lot of possible scenarios, and considering that everybody seems to react poorly to that, I assume that the vast majority of people would prefer to be alive and in prison than dead. Economically, it's not that expensive to kill people. It's expensive to do it by the methods we currently use. Give every state an airtight room and a few giant tanks of nitrogen and you can kill quite a lot of people super cheaply. Regarding the Lecter example.... ugh, you've pushed a personal button on the design of prisons and other secure facilities. The human animal is not, biomechanically speaking, that dangerous. Without substantial training or weapons, it's hard for us to inflict truly awful damage on one another. We're not equipped with talons, claws, overwhelming strength, and our teeth are modest weapons at best. The only people I believe we should put in cages are those who have demonstrated a willingness to inflict physical harm/death on others. These are dangerous animals that happen to have human shape. How do so many zoos keep tigers and lions, and all other manner of dangerous animals, with remarkably few deaths each year? By designing environments where the animal does not have an opportunity to physically interact with it's captors. With automation, and sufficient industrialization, a proper prison, by my estimation, keeps physically dangerous individuals alive, in good health, and with access to whatever minimums of stimulation necessary to keep them from going insane. All of which can be provided without direct human interaction. Such a prison would be made of materials that humans cannot alter without substantial physical injury, poured concrete, steel bars set in poured concrete and half inch Lexan should prove more than adequate. Structures can be built in such a way that the inmate is never capable of interacting with a seam, lever, door, or any other bit that could be manipulated to come off or cause them to escape. Inmates would never interact with each other, or even with guards except remotely.
Er, that's called solitary confinement. It's typically reserved as an extreme form of punishment, considering humans are social animals. Put any prisoner in solitary confinement all the time and they certainly will want to kill themselves. Disagree. With no weapons and superior strength, a prisoner can kill a guard simply by bashing their head into the concrete. Humans are fragile. Sounds like a great idea. Put it on a ballot and I'll vote for it. Until then, with the environment we have, prisoners are dangerous. Laws should consider the reality, not the ideal.Inmates would never interact with each other, or even with guards except remotely.
The human animal is not, biomechanically speaking, that dangerous.
With automation, and sufficient industrialization, a proper prison
I'm not saying solitary, I'm saying they can't interact with others physically. Camera + Monitor behind lexan, let a guard take care of actually starting and ending the call. On the dangers of the human animal, we'd need a shit ton of information to even begin to have a meaningful debate. I'll concede that a determined individual is capable of royally fucking up somebody unprepared to deal with them. Ok, lets immediately release all non-violent offenders, and start locking up real criminals, the ones who kick people out of their homes, and sell their debt. The criminals in white collars. The change that I want to see will require so much other social change that I'm just going to say that a near full-blown revolution will have to occur in order to make it happen.Sounds like a great idea. Put it on a ballot and I'll vote for it. Until then, with the environment we have, prisoners are dangerous. Laws should consider the reality, not the ideal.