zlacker

>>RBBron+(OP)
State and federal governments do not get as much tax revenue either because these people are not earning at their full potential. So basically, it hurts everyone involved as well as society as a whole.

>>w8rbt+Ij
So I have mixed feelings about this situation. On the one hand, if the sentences were for drug possession, yes, I think its really shitty to incarcerate people for that. But if their felony was due to burglary or something more serious/violent, I do think they deserve the punishment.

I also agree that once the sentence has been served, people should not be punished any further, except where the occupation requires a clean record. e.g. I would be OK with pharmacies requiring no arrest for drugs etc. as a condition for employment, or drivers without DWI convictions etc.

I guess my point is: its not a purely economic decision. Sure you're losing tax revenue, but that's because you're:

1) Protecting society from a person who has demonstrates some lack of understanding/acceptance of its rules.

2) Cause significant discomfort/pain to the perpetrator of the crime so that they realize the consequences of breaking the law and hopefully never do it again.

>>pm90+Po
Do you really think preventing people from getting jobs makes them less likely to commit crimes in the future? To me it seems the opposite is much more likely. If people are unable to make an honest living they will be forced to commit crimes to make ends meet.

The prison sentence is the punishment for the crime. After people are let out of prison they should be reintegrated into society.