- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
So what? Some reasonable thought would have to be given as to how much of a "discount" you get, and my committee hasn't formed yet to sort this completely out.
When you're a prisoner, we coerce you into living in a tiny space with no comforts and no privacy. In Norway, it's not a crime to break out of prison because they feel it ius natural. In America, breakouts are harshly punished. In my view, this would be a reasonable exchange between society and those who harmed society.
It's one thing to put someone in a jail cell and give them no choice to leave, which honestly is bad enough, but it's another to give them a choice between imprisonment and agreeing to lose bodily functions on the condition of the release. Do you honestly think it is right for the state to offer a coercive choice that ends in bodily impairment?
Do you really want the state to have the power to offer those kind of choices to desperate people? The condition of imprisonment is obviously a strong motivator for them to accept any condition on release including losing bodily function.