What I'm thinking is if a convicted violent offender had a police minder(s) effectively 24/7 what are the costs to society compared to maintaining prisons, prisoners of which tend to reoffend?

What kind of minding would be necessary? At least three officers within 100m at all times? Clever/smart braclets/tags? We already have community, home, and periodic detention. Is this so different?

IMHO these is still a need for physical incarceration of irredeemably violent crimes. That terrorist, rapists, murderers, etc.

[–] Floofah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A good question. The recidivism costs I guess are what most, me included, will view as a valid reason to continue imprisonment for serious offences.

[–] deadbeef79000 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Me too.

Society has a limit to how much of "crime X" they'll tolerate.

Some should be exactly one: murder, rape, toture, etc. I'd argue that provable attempts at those count as one, so the threshold is actually less than one.

I feel like pretty much everything else can be "civil" consequences:

financial crimes: forbidden from holding a position with fiduciary responsibility, repayment, punitive damages.
theft: restitution, punitive damages, restraining orders

What I'm really unsure about is, arguably, progenitors to violence:

drink driving? Lose license, curfew? What happens when they do it again and hurt someone?
harassment? Restraining orders? What happens when it escalates?

Just to throw a few into discussion.

[–] Floofah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s a tough call in deciding the seriousness of an offence when deciding the consequences, especially when it is a repeat. The costs of incarceration are huge, yet it seems to be needed to hopefully discourage the more serious crimes.