this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
1014 points (98.6% liked)
Political Weirdos
1233 readers
889 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you were tolerating their actions lol. I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
My idea of exile, just a thought in my head, would be that it would be a choice to go through rehabilitation or leave society. If a person refuses to stop being intolerant, what is the solution? They can refuse treatment, act in bad faith, and I don't think forcing compliance ever helped anything. So what do we do?
I get that exile is kind of a terrible antiquated idea, but if we cannot tolerate intolerance and the offender refuses to change what is the solution?
You add more time in prison. If you keep re-offending and are a harm to society you will start to spend more time in prison.
But you'll find the vast majority of people want to be productive and even those that are more self centered will generally take the opportunity to be a better member of society even if it's just to avoid more prison. If you start with massive penalties then you never even gave that person a chance.
It's not about controlling people's thoughts. It's about ensuring that their actions aren't illegal. If they want to hold onto hate their whole life that's their choice. As long as they aren't harming others they can still carry their prejudice.
Break the law again though you go back to prison.
But when you put someone in our current prison system for 20 years you're basically ensuring they will commit a crime again. You're taking away their chance to be a productive member of society, essentially enslaving them, and all of this comes at a great monetary cost to the taxpayer.
Okay, so you want prison, but with time more suited to the crime to give ample opportunity to reform. I don't even want prisons. Rehabilitation should be completely different from that. You're still using the stick and hurting people by taking away their freedom. I think that's why our opinions differ. You would continually punish offenders and I would just give them a chance to reform or leave. I don't really like the idea of putting anyone in a cage.
Well hold on some clarifying questions.
In your rehabilitation model would criminals allowed to go free or would they be held through the rehabilitation process? What if they are violent and pose an immediate threat to the community?
If the safety of the public is at risk, then some amount of supervision is necessary. If a person is violent for example, then being restrained, restricted, or sedated is probably necessary. There can be no tolerance of them interfering with the freedoms of others.
Having thought about this for half the day, my best answer is that response, the no tolerance, should be as humane as possible. If a person is actively homicidal, then yes, they need to be restrained. If a person is untrustworthy they need to be tracked.
However, rehabilitation should teach integration into society and thus should be tightly integrated with society. Ideally rehabilitation happens in the community you live in and with as minimal restrictions as possible other than whatever requirements there is for safety of the community, attending, passing, reintegration, whatever we're calling it, a person should be encouraged to live and work within their community.
If we end up in extremes as would of course happen, the order of which I think is most humane to least is as follows : voluntary exile, voluntary imprisonment, involuntary imprisonment, involuntary exile, execution