Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (6372)	6/12/2003 6:37:15 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Insufficient data for an economic analysis of benefit. How many people are treated for that $148B? What evidence suggests treatment of mental illness reduces recidivism? Or is effective at all? How many prisoners have to be treated to recover the cost of treatment? Can it be done at all or economically is it more cost effective simply to jail them? Untreated, presumably they will revert to crime once released, so that would have to be taken into account. There is also potential productivity lost because of their continued mental illness. And this is strictly an economic analysis. The cost in pain and suffering are not quantifiable and are not subject to economic analysis. But why confine this to mentally ill prisoners? Locking someone up in a cage and having them go stir-crazy hardly seems like a prescription to reduce likelihood of future crime. In fact, the charge is made that prison is just graduate and postgraduate education for criminals. If this is true, then the older ways of dealing with crime- -stocks, whippings, executions- -would appear more effective. At least if you are out in the stocks for a few days or have a hand cut off, it doesn't cost $60,000 a year to keep you caged up.