You clearly have no grasp of reality.
Is reality the sort of thing which is at a distance from us and graspable...? But never mind, this is off-topic.
Okay. You pay for it. Or in la la land do these oasises appear because you want them to?
As you know, the law and order budget in most countries is very very large. A prison costs much more to build and staff than a five-star hotel. A huge amount of money is actually being spent to make prisons as cruel and brutal as possible. Now that we have left the vengeance model of prison, the CRIMINAL-DEBT model of criminal 'justice' behind, there is no need to spend billions of your and my tax dollars to inflict sadistic punishment on people who are total strangers to me, and frankly, most of whom are very decent people. I strongly object to my tax money being used this way, and people of conscience are educating themselves about conscientious tax objection. Just as most people do not want their taxes paying for that other barbaric ritual held-over from the dark-ages: war. Similarly, conscientious tax objectors do not want their national and local taxes paying for dry-land slave ships; such a thing was intolerable on the high seas, and it sure as heck isn't okay on land either!
Cost is not the issue; most people would be happy to pay a few dollars more in tax if it meant prisons wouldn't be slave-ship torture chambers (more than 140,000 people may be in long-term or permanent solitary confinement RIGHT NOW in the the US alone! A prison rape occurs every one-minute!)
Take it bitch.
People from back-grounds as diverse as fervent Christians to radical Anarchists, to erudite philosophers have all been able to deconstruct the idea of criminal-debt. It is not real, it is imaginary, just like the national debt, or corporate debt. This connection is very important because as you know, until quite recently, debt could land you up in prison. Revenge-justice is as insane as debt economy. Criminal-debt is elucidated much better by Nietzsche or Foucault than I could explain it, I have typed out a paragraph below from the Post-Structuralists Deleuze and Guattari, from their Anti-Oedipus
: 3:7, they are writing about Genealogy of Morals
, to show you the back-ground of where we are going,
"He has ... widened, beyond the limits allowed ... to such a degree that it is necessary to re-establish the equilibrium through an increase in pain. Nietzsche doesn't say this, but what does it matter? For it is indeed here that he encounters the terrible equation of debt: injury done = pain to be suffered. How does one explain, he asks, that the criminal's pain can serve as an "equivalent" of the harm he has done? How can one "pay back" with suffering?"
I do think that they should be protected against other inmates and not be subjected to brutal treatment. I do not know much about how prisons are run, but am inclined to think that they should protect inmates against the very things that they are condemning them for. I mean, simple, humane treatment, prisoners not being put in situations where they will be harmed.
Right. Like Heraclitus said, "washing up blood with blood".
Without a doubt violence created them. To unleash them upon the world would only unleash more violence and corruption continuing the cycle. Perhaps it is the imprisonment of other types of offenders that allows for more violence to be aware too.
Right. Prisons are actually making the outside world worse which doubly justifies the urgency of finding a better and more humane way of doing this. As they say, "crime university".