SilasBarta comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

236 Post author: Yvain 30 May 2010 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (343)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: stcredzero 31 May 2010 02:49:22PM 3 points [-]

The only problem with this is that it works in reverse. We could put people who haven't commited a crime in jail on the grounds that they are likely to or it helps society when their in jail.

Before things go that far, shouldn't a society set up voluntary programs for treatment? Exactly how does one draw the line between punishment and treatment? Our society has blurred the two notions. (Plea bargaining involving attendance of a driving course.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 31 May 2010 06:48:30PM *  5 points [-]

Exactly how does one draw the line between punishment and treatment? Our society has blurred the two notions.

Very true. As I noted in my other comment, jails necessarily suck to be in, above and beyond the loss of freedom of movement.

We just don't have a common, accepted protocol to handle people who are "dangerous to others, though they haven't (yet) done anything wrong, and maybe did good by turning themselves in". Such people would deserve to be detained, but not in a way intended to be unpleasant.

The closest examples I can think of for this kind of treatment (other than the international border system I described in the other comment) are halfway houses, quarantining, jury sequestration, and insane asylums (in those cases where the inmate has just gone nuts but not committed violent crimes yet). There needs to be a more standard protocol for these intermediate cases, which would look similar to minimum security prisons, but not require you to have committed a crime, and be focused on making you less dangerous so you can be released.