> Taking a person's freedom is wrong. It may be necessary for society to function, but it is still wrong.
I want to be charitable here, but it sounds like you're saying that it is unconditionally wrong, as in, prison is simply wrong. If you are, then, sorry, but that is utterly insane. If someone commits a serious crime, that person deserves serious punishment, and of serious punishments, imprisonment for a commensurate period of time is entirely appropriate. For the more egregious crimes, imprisonment is insufficient (think of Breivik who easily deserved the death penalty). What the appropriate measures against drug abuse are, I don't know.
I don't see what deserving one thing or the other has to do with it, honestly. Retribution is something the justice institutions have been slowly moving away from for centuriea now, but unfortunately remnants of eye-for-an-eye still linger.
And yes, my personal judgment is that taking a person's freedom may be necessary in sone cases but is always a violation. If we want to keep putting people in prison, we need to bear that burden, not pretend it doesn't exist.
One of the reasons the government punishes criminals is so that private individuals are less likely to punish criminals. We're trying to prevent an endless cycle of revenge. The victim, or their family, needs to feel that the criminal has suffered. Private punishment is not bound by any restriction on being cruel and unusual.
I want to be charitable here, but it sounds like you're saying that it is unconditionally wrong, as in, prison is simply wrong. If you are, then, sorry, but that is utterly insane. If someone commits a serious crime, that person deserves serious punishment, and of serious punishments, imprisonment for a commensurate period of time is entirely appropriate. For the more egregious crimes, imprisonment is insufficient (think of Breivik who easily deserved the death penalty). What the appropriate measures against drug abuse are, I don't know.