Comment by cvz
3 years ago
He's not asking for sympathy. The entire article is about how he ended up where he is now, how the prison he's at now has saved him from a life of crime by giving him a meaningful chance at a career, that this is an anomaly, and that it shouldn't be.
I'm wondering if one of the factors here is that the public is funding this opportunity, and that many, many non-criminal members of that public are doing the $10.50/h thing with no such support and very limited opportunity.
If I were to choose between (a) getting such a funding/opportunity but having to spend 10 years in jail to qualify for it, or (b) not getting this funding and staying free, I’d certainly pick (b), even if my only alternative was a minimum wage job.
I’d also argue that the reason for the public to fund such opportunities is not primarily an act of humanity, but it’s rather a long-term “investment” into lowering overall recidivism rates. That being said, one way to look at it is that the public is not funding him, but it’s funding its own interests.
No disagreement here. The main thrust of my comment was the observation that perceived fairness is a powerful psychological factor and that it might be at play in discussions like this one.
The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. The non-criminal members of the public shouldn't be subjected to this either.
Yes, there must exist unskilled, low-paying labor -- but there also must exist ample opportunity for education and self-betterment for (almost) ALL individuals.
The most heinous of persons excepted, of course.