I think, to say that they don't belong in the same prison together, would require a certain acceptance of the current state of things as "natural". One would have to accept that the violent conditions of maximum security prisons are an unavoidable situation. And one would also have to accept that even minimum security prison is as equal deterrent to crime as maximum security prison.
Given what we know about prison guard misconduct and how countries like Norway handle their most violent offenders, I don't think it is the case that prison has to be terrible, violent, places. In every case I've ever heard of, compassion and rehabilitation for criminals of all types is the best way to reduce recidivism. Punishment turns out to not be that much of a deterrent for desperate people who think they screwed either way.
And given that minimum security federal penitentiaries have the nickname "Club Fed", it would seem that they don't serve as a very significant deterrent.
The full, correct answer is that the entire prison industrial complex needs to be torn down and rebuilt. Unfortunately, there is too much money in it for that to happen anytime soon in America.
I guess rather than what could be wrong with it, why do you think or feel it's necessary to have them separately placed? Is it that you believe non-violent offenders shouldn't be at risk to violence from violent ones? Do you find there to be a societal benefit to this? To the inmates? I honestly just want to know your take on this.
- It seems to break the rule of punishment matching the crime. I wouldn't say violent criminals "deserve" to be locked in with other violent criminals & get stabbed, but at least the violent ones might be better able to fend for themselves.
- Violent criminals require more security, so if we separate the violent & nonviolent criminals it will be cheaper for the US taxpayer
A jail cell is to hold arrestees, not to punish them.
I'm also finding it weird that in your 'punishment matching the crime' scenario, a burglar who makes off with your TV is treated worse than a pension fund raider who causes a string of suicides. Or even a more run-of-the-mill embezzler who 'only' makes off with 100k.
If burglary is considered a violent crime, I may need to rework my comments.
As for jail v. prison, my apologies. I know the distinction, but so few people make the distinction in their use of the two words I usually ignore the difference.
Hmm, alright. To your first point, the ultimate conclusion to that idea would be a graded prison, where criminals of like-violence are kept together so everyone has the same likelihood of fending themselves, because I can imagine there are those that are charged with assault being significantly less violent than murderers. I wonder if that would also further lessen the cost for your second point.
Many countries generally don't cage people suspected of crimes - but not convicted or even charged - in a small holding pen similar to those used to hold animals. Others do, but let people with means bribe their way into better conditions...
