"Applying death penalty for every crime would kill much more people than prisons do.
Therefore, prisons are necessary to reduce deaths and respect the rights of criminals. It is better to have less deaths than more deaths."
Being that it appears that what is "best" or "better" is less deaths, less harm and people live according to you and this topic, who's to say the death penalty will be applied?
If people know that if the law is broken, their neck is broken. So the death penalty can serve as a deterrent. Many people commit crimes knowing that if they can survive in prison, make connections in prison, setup more illegal operations in prison, collect infractions then breaking out of prisons to do more crimes, there's not much discouragement.
But knowing by just sending a death threat, passing a robbery note, burglarizing, whatever will not get you a prison sentence because penal prisons don't exist but get you a death sentence, maybe some second thoughts arise.
Folks only go but so far to avoid the death penalty but will enter a plea .
"I would say that these are just different type of prisons."
This is an ad hoc response. You didn't define penal prisons as also being mental institutions prior to . On top of that, the freedom difference is important. You didn't establish a fixated standard of what constitutes freedom with a prisoner and patient. If you leave it arbitrary, we both can just commit ad hoc fallacies after awhile.
I therefore submit this also as a valid suggestion according to the topic.
"What the hell.
Thats disgusting.
In fact, that is so cruel that it makes prisons look humane in comparison.
Here is a video of lobotomization. Warning: Its more disgusting than any horror movie you have seen. Cant unsee or forget."
Another fallacy, argumentum ad fastidium, strike two.
An appeal to disgust from you. I can do the same thing with prisons. The things that go on in prisons, the brutality, violence, sexual violence, drugs.
Gotta do better than that.
"Making people prisoners in their own body isnt any better than putting them in prison."
This is another ad hoc point. You prior to this did not say a change in behavior mentally and physically constitutes the same as the penal prison system . The issue is in defining what freedom amounts to. If a person is rehabilitated regardless of the method use, are they imprisoned to live in a law abiding fashion?
"So that too is a prison, its just that their house becomes the prison which they cant leave."
Yes you're pretty much conflating at this point. You're saying a bunch of things constitute as prison.
The thing is, would the supreme court agree with you?
Let's go down this road of conflation.
We're all in prison. We have what we call the monetary prison system. There's is absolutely nothing free and you're not free to do anything without payment obligation.
There are those that definitely believe all people of "color " are prisoners of the "white" supremacy system.
It comes down to what constitutes penal prison. Let us just keep the penal prison system to mean a place called Alcatraz. Why not ? Let's leave it there.
"Prison breaks are rare and dont negate the fact that prisons are the best way to deal with criminals."
Doesn't matter if it's rare. It's the best way so far. Not the best absolutely. If it was absolute, it be perfect. Absolutely NO rarities or occasions whatsoever.
But this point is besides the topic. Let's get back on topic.
Reevaluate what a penal prison system is before moving forward.
The topic deals with making prisons unnecessary.
So yes, as long as it is best for prisons to exist, prisons are necessary.
Course you can, it is just it is not guaranteed to be a good alternative. I could just replace prisons with everyone with even the slightest of the petty crimes with instant liquidization on the spot so prisons are replaced with death penalty at large. It is suggested by me. Can it work? Technically yes. Does it? Maybe not, but still fits the topic.
I thought we could discuss if there is alternative to prisons.