Loss of freedom is punishment enough.
Prison should be as much like life in the outside world as possible without the liberty and luxuries.
Putting people in a wholly unnatural environment for years ruins most of them. Spending five consecutive hears in prison results in an 85% recidivism rate, regardless of the original offense. People simply adapt to the unnatural system and can't reassimilate.
And a couple months won't fix it.
I generally think that you take a reasonable approach to most issues, What if.., however, not so much on this point. A loss of freedom is NOT merely enough for some crimes, although, I'll grant you that lessor, victimless crimes would garner that sentiment. Violent crimes, crimes where
material harm (which all and I mean ALL laws should be based on) has taken place require a more severe punitive measure, IMO. Society demands it, frankly, and so they should. Jamesrage is correct. Crime is punishable, and the punishment should fit the crime. Sounds easy enough, you'd think, but clearly we have a lot of disagreement about what punishment we should dole out for what crimes. Someone is Colorado {As an example) breaking into a home and stealing a TV shouldn't receive more time as that of someone raping a child, IMO, but alas, that seems to be the way it is there. I don't want violent criminals rehabilitated. I want them punished, and very hard! No TV, a cold bed, a toilet, and three meals a day. During the day I want them doing hard labor. I want it so BAD that any thought of committing the same offense when they get out is the last thing on their minds. I certainly do NOT want them to feel as though if they do it again, all they'll have to endure is a nice warm comfy bed, Sat TV, steak dinner, and smokes. Sorry, I don't see it that way. The criminal mind is rarely rehabilitable, and rehabilitation is only successful statistically if the criminal is younger between the ages of 18 to 25. Older criminals have shown to be less successful in rehabilitation programs, and violent criminals are almost statistically sure to re-commit after being released. Plus, how the hell does someone know if someone has been rehabilitated anyway?
There is some data that shows success, so I'll grant you that, but the devil is in the details. The success rates depend greatly on the age of the offender, and amount of time spent rehabilitating, and the age at which they are released. The age at which the crime was committed, the term spent in confinement, and the type of crime, tends to point to a predictable pattern of recidivism. To me this is one of those topics that really needs a national referendum. The pinheaded psychologists, and researchers and do-gooders have been experimenting with crime and punishment far to long, IMO. We as a society not only have the right to set these standard, we are obligated to. We are also responsible for the consequences, however positive, and or negative they come to be reconciled.
Tim-