Does Society Need Prisons?

[GE Morton]

Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process.

I agree, in substance.

Per the restitution model there are no fixed prison terms. The inmate is kept confined until his restitution obligation is paid in full. That obligation consists of the damages/losses inflicted upon his victims, as determined in a hearing following conviction, plus the costs to the State to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, plus his ongoing costs of confinement. Those costs must be factored into any cost-benefit calculation.

A question: how does this cost-based approach benefit society, offenders or victims?

I would think that obvious. The victims benefit by receiving some compensation for the losses/injuries inflicted upon them. The public benefits by recovering some of the costs incurred in responding to the crime, and from the reduced risk of being victimized, because that predator is off the streets. To what benefits do you imagine the offender is entitled?

What are re-offending rates? Are offenders rehabilitated?

Offenders could enroll in any "rehabilitation" program they wish. That cost would be added to their restitution obligation. The public has no no duty to foot that bill.

[Pattern-chaser]

Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process.

I agree, in substance.

Per the restitution model there are no fixed prison terms. The inmate is kept confined until his restitution obligation is paid in full. That obligation consists of the damages/losses inflicted upon his victims, as determined in a hearing following conviction, plus the costs to the State to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, plus his ongoing costs of confinement. Those costs must be factored into any cost-benefit calculation.

A question: how does this cost-based approach benefit society, offenders or victims?

I would think that obvious. The victims benefit by receiving some compensation for the losses/injuries inflicted upon them. The public benefits by recovering some of the costs incurred in responding to the crime, and from the reduced risk of being victimized, because that predator is off the streets. To what benefits do you imagine the offender is entitled?

What are re-offending rates? Are offenders rehabilitated?

Offenders could enroll in any "rehabilitation" program they wish. That cost would be added to their restitution obligation. The public has no no duty to foot that bill.

Sorry, I think we're talking at cross purposes. I don't think this issue can be reduced to a financial package. There is more to life than dollars, IMO.

[LuckyR]

Cost:benefit ratios are at the heart of sound decision making for those (such as myself) who care more about outcomes than process.

I agree, in substance.

Per the restitution model there are no fixed prison terms. The inmate is kept confined until his restitution obligation is paid in full. That obligation consists of the damages/losses inflicted upon his victims, as determined in a hearing following conviction, plus the costs to the State to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute the offender, plus his ongoing costs of confinement. Those costs must be factored into any cost-benefit calculation.

A question: how does this cost-based approach benefit society, offenders or victims?

I would think that obvious. The victims benefit by receiving some compensation for the losses/injuries inflicted upon them. The public benefits by recovering some of the costs incurred in responding to the crime, and from the reduced risk of being victimized, because that predator is off the streets. To what benefits do you imagine the offender is entitled?

What are re-offending rates? Are offenders rehabilitated?

Offenders could enroll in any "rehabilitation" program they wish. That cost would be added to their restitution obligation. The public has no no duty to foot that bill.

A couple of things.

First, society prosecutes criminals, not victims. Financial restitution as the primary form of penalty for anything other than purely financial crimes (a small minority of crime) results in a get out jail free card for the rich. Such a system would encourage crime among those who can afford it, not a worthy outcome. If the financial penalty was on a sliding scale based on net worth instead of the damage caused would be better, but still subject to shenanigans among the rich.

[GE Morton]

In the way I use the words, a marijuana smoker who gets put in prison for possessing small amounts of marijuana, and who is not innocent of the charged crime (i.e. illegal act), is thus a "real criminal".

As another example in the way I use the words "real" and "criminal", Martin Luther King Jr. was a real criminal.

Accordingly. if you mean to talk only about the fraction of criminals that also happen to be victimizers, I request that for my sake--at least in communications with me--you specifically use a phrase like "criminal victimizers".

"Crime," in common usage, has a broader application than mere legal infractions.

Crime:
1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
especially : a gross violation of law
2: a grave offense especially against morality

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

But, ok, "victimizers" it is.

Even most "criminal victimizers" are presumably not technically violent, so if you want to talk specifically about the fraction of criminals who happen to also be violent victimizers, please do further specify that by saying something like "criminal violent victimizers" or such, simply so I know you are talking about that fraction of criminals and not talking about the majority of criminals since you consider the majority of incarcerated criminals to be unreal criminals even though the reality of their imprisonment is real.

That is not true. While a substantial fraction of prison inmates --- mainly drug offenders --- are not victimizers, they are not the majority. Although they make up about 47% of federal prison inmates, they are only about 15% of state prison inmates --- and that's where most inmates are incarcerated. There are other categories of non-victimizers in prison, of course, but they make up a very small fraction of the inmate population.

BTW, I draw no moral distinction between violent and non-violent criminals. Any intentional and unjustified act which inflicts a loss or injury on another moral agent is a crime, whether committed by force, fraud, or stealth.

I could be mistaken, but unfortunately it seems the stats to which you linked involve what you might call "fake criminals". To be applicable, I think you would need to provide statistics regarding only the much smaller subset of violent victimizers that you mean to talk about.

Those are available. Indeed, some are given in the link I gave you:

"Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders."

The rehabilitation or mental health treatment provided to a violent schizophrenic would of course be very different than the so-called "mental health treatment" or "rehabilitation" provided to (or forced upon) a peaceful pot smoker or on some peaceful gay kid being forced into conversion therapy.

I agree. About the only thing they have in common is that they don't work for most patients/inmates.

Indeed, if the person is a pacifist and is being violently forced into a cage and given so-called "rehabilitation" or "mental health treatment", then I assume we can agree the titles "rehabilitation" or "mental health treatment" would be misnomers--even though I do not doubt a violent government would label its caging of peaceful people as "rehabilitation" or such and its non-consensual brainwashing of peaceful people as "mental health treatment". I think we can agree that the statistics regarding the success of such non-defensively violent programs are not relevant to this discussion.

Agree. But the success rate for "legitimate" rehabilitation and treatment schemes is not much better:

"Traditionally, criminologists such as Martinson would read over a group of studies evaluating treatment programs. They would then either describe what the studies found—a narrative review—or try to count how many studies showed that offender treatment worked or did not work—the "ballot box" method. A meta-analysis, however, essentially computes a batting average across all studies, calculating the average impact of treatment on recidivism. Using this method, the existing research, which now involves hundreds of evaluation studies, shows that rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism about 10 percentage points. Thus, if a control group had a recidivism rate of 55 percent, the treatment group's rate of re-offending would be 45 percent . . .

"A group of Canadian psychologists interested in crime—Don Andrews, James Bonta, and Paul Gendreau being its most prominent members—have taken the analysis of effective rehabilitation one step farther . . . Based on meta-analyses of treatment studies, they found that in rehabilitation programs that conformed to the principles of effective intervention, recidivism was about 25 percentage points lower in the treatment as opposed to the control group . . ."

https://law.jrank.org/pages/1936/Rehabi ... -work.html

The majority of released inmates re-offend, even those who participated in rehabilitation programs considered the best-designed. Most programs do not conform to those principles.

The question of why we have one is very different than why we might want one. The former question addresses primarily the motivation of the violent person(s) (i.e. the imprisoners) as well as the reason for that violent person's success (i.e. the fact that prisons do currently exist) in implementing their goals (e.g. to make profit) which in modern politics is arguably perhaps best summed by the words violent plutocracy. The second question is more pipe-dream-oriented, and thus more philosophical, which in turn runs the risk of becoming prescriptive where the first question is inherently a matter of the descriptive.

You seem to be buying into the leftist myth that persons are incarcerated so that (private) prison operators can make a profit. Is that your contention? That is nonsense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... story.html

For example, as Frederick Douglass escaped slavery, it would be a very different question for him to wonder why slavery did exist at that time, than if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality that is presumably a more utopian version of the society that actually existed at the time.

The two different questions may seem to converge together to the degree one assumes the violent rulers of society are benevolent (e.g. that one is living under a benevolent dictator) and/or that society is already as utopian as practically possible, but I believe we can all easily agree such assumptions are very mistaken.

I fail to see how that answers the question, "Why do we have a criminal justice system? What is its purpose?"

[GE Morton]

Financial restitution as the primary form of penalty for anything other than purely financial crimes (a small minority of crime) results in a get out jail free card for the rich. Such a system would encourage crime among those who can afford it, not a worthy outcome. If the financial penalty was on a sliding scale based on net worth instead of the damage caused would be better, but still subject to shenanigans among the rich.

Well, first, "the rich" commit very few crimes, and most of those are financial crimes. They don't tend to burglarize homes, steal cars, mug joggers or stick up 7-11s.

And I'm not sure how you conclude that financial penalties would encourage those "rich" to commit more crimes. The offender's restitution obligation would be determined according to existing rules of civil procedure, which permit punitive damages in some cases.

[LuckyR]

Financial restitution as the primary form of penalty for anything other than purely financial crimes (a small minority of crime) results in a get out jail free card for the rich. Such a system would encourage crime among those who can afford it, not a worthy outcome. If the financial penalty was on a sliding scale based on net worth instead of the damage caused would be better, but still subject to shenanigans among the rich.

Well, first, "the rich" commit very few crimes, and most of those are financial crimes. They don't tend to burglarize homes, steal cars, mug joggers or stick up 7-11s.

And I'm not sure how you conclude that financial penalties would encourage those "rich" to commit more crimes. The offender's restitution obligation would be determined according to existing rules of civil procedure, which permit punitive damages in some cases.

Oh sorry, I forgot that the descriptor "the rich" is a charged one and adds unnecessary distraction.

Allow me to rephrase to minimize that sort of thing: successful professional criminals will be encouraged to commit more crimes since their "income" is off the books and they will view restitution as the cost of doing business and these folks commit murder routinely. Meanwhile the destitute who can't afford bread before stealing some, will find it extremely difficult to repay for something they couldn't afford in the first place. As to "the rich" it might be cheaper to kill your wife rather than divorce her depending on your prenup.

[GE Morton]

Allow me to rephrase to minimize that sort of thing: successful professional criminals will be encouraged to commit more crimes since their "income" is off the books and they will view restitution as the cost of doing business and these folks commit murder routinely. Meanwhile the destitute who can't afford bread before stealing some, will find it extremely difficult to repay for something they couldn't afford in the first place.

Who are these people who "commit murder routinely"?

Thieves will be able afford restitution, because they will be forced to work in prison industries.

As to "the rich" it might be cheaper to kill your wife rather than divorce her depending on your prenup.

I suspect juries would be inclined to award substantial punitive damages in those cases.

[LuckyR]

Allow me to rephrase to minimize that sort of thing: successful professional criminals will be encouraged to commit more crimes since their "income" is off the books and they will view restitution as the cost of doing business and these folks commit murder routinely. Meanwhile the destitute who can't afford bread before stealing some, will find it extremely difficult to repay for something they couldn't afford in the first place.

Who are these people who "commit murder routinely"?

Thieves will be able afford restitution, because they will be forced to work in prison industries.

As to "the rich" it might be cheaper to kill your wife rather than divorce her depending on your prenup.

I suspect juries would be inclined to award substantial punitive damages in those cases.

Uummm... drug cartels for one.

So your experience is that the wealthy with their legal teams tend to get more draconian sentancing than the rabble?

[Inquinsitive_mind]

Both psychiatric hospitals and prisons are necessary for a society to function. There are those who commit crimes due to mental illness and there are those who commit crimes because they believe that other’s lives and property are meaningless or less meaningful than their own (e.g. those who rob and murder). There are people who commit crime simply because they do not wish to have a typical job (e.g people who sell drugs because they can make more money in a shorter period of time). Mental health institutions would not necessarily benefit these people. Prisons are intended to be a facility in which criminals can be rehabilitated back into society. Although it is an extremely flawed system in need of reform, to abolish prisons completely would not create a better society. Prisons act as a consequence to those who commit crimes or engage in illegal activity. To take away that consequence would potentially increase crime. Are gangbangers, human traffickers, and robbers, etc in need of psychiatric services? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some individuals who engage in illegal activities may need mental health treatment and support, but others may need prison. There should be more employment support services (prepare inmates for interviews, line up jobs, etc.) for those who commit crimes because they feel as though it is their only opportunity to make a living. Both institutions, although they require reform, are necessary for a society to function.

To briefly answer the question “Does society need prisons”, the answer is yes. However, that doesn’t mean that society needs the current prison system nor that there are individuals who are in prison, but would benefit more from another institution (i.e. psychiatric facilities).

[Nitai]

I can ear the sentence "One school open one prison close"
But there is no utopie even if school will give everyone their perfect matching skills and activities, Prison will be needed


Healthy Society need prison but a sick society too.
An healthy society want all their membres to be happy
A Sick society want just to control and have their way
so in both way prison will be needed.
The real question is what is the reformatory process and what kind of people we want as they come out

And we have seen the reformatory process of prison have failed, it even became a school for learning criminality.
And it is only a reflection of the society in large, where nothing means nothing anymore, how can we teach values and morality when the goal is to have a lot of money to gratify your senses ? when life is just an accidental combination of matters ? where do you want to put beauty, compassion and Love ?
Actually in such an materialistic society prison is an nonsense because the cartel of what they call nowaday "scientist" say everything that have real value is subjective, so why do you put people in prison ? Because your subjectivity is better then someone else ? If nothing make senses then why is there one subjectivity better ?
Actually the knowledge of these people is good only to make machines to destroy the world
And you know what is even more funny ? People accept this cartel because they like too much the confort of the technology.
But the most crazy thing is when they start to speak about what is reality people listen to them


So it is a very deep subject indeed...

[Robert66]

I agree with LuckyR that the high cost of imprisonment is a crucial factor to consider.

Societies generally need less prisoners, while still needing some (preferably fewer) prisons for the worst offenders, as has been amply covered already. With a shift toward private prisons occurring globally, a solution looms into view. The private prison owners should be remunerated according to the success they achieve in reducing recidivism, and finding gainful employment for criminals. If the business model for these owners is merely more prisoners = more income, then we can surely expect poor societal outcomes.

Unfortunately for private prisons, they have a reputation for paying kickbacks to judges for sentancing prisoners to their business. Not a fan.

Ok, you are not a fan - neither am I. Doesn't mean there isn't a better way, eg as I have outlined.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

While a substantial fraction of prison inmates --- mainly drug offenders --- are not victimizers, they are not the majority.

Please provide your sources for this claim. Please list the percentages with sources for all three of the following:

1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders)

2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders)

3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers)

If you do not mind, please provide all three percentages with sources.

In theory, #1 and #2 need to equal 100%, and #3 needs to be less than #2 since #3 is a subset of #2.

The approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system. Why do we have one?

[Emphasis added.]

The question of why we have one is very different than why we might want one. The former question addresses primarily the motivation of the violent person(s) (i.e. the imprisoners) as well as the reason for that violent person's success (i.e. the fact that prisons do currently exist) in implementing their goals (e.g. to make profit) which in modern politics is arguably perhaps best summed by the words violent plutocracy. The second question is more pipe-dream-oriented, and thus more philosophical, which in turn runs the risk of becoming prescriptive where the first question is inherently a matter of the descriptive.

You seem to be buying into the leftist myth...

No, I am not a leftist. I was not commenting with or on leftism, but rather on the potential problems of your question itself and the potential fallacies that would result if we do not clearly distinguish between the question of why we have the current prison system that exists and why it is the way it is (a descriptive question) versus why we might want one at all if we even do.

I am not a leftist, but as I wrote in my topic Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man, I think the idea of a benevolent dictator (or worse a mob of humans acting together as a big government) is a pipe dream.

I am not a leftist, but I believe it is very clear that the political system and government in the United States is plutocratic, violently so of course. Do you not agree?

The approach chosen will depend on what one thinks is the purpose of a criminal justice system. Why do we have one?

The question of why we have one is very different than why we might want one. The former question addresses primarily the motivation of the violent person(s) (i.e. the imprisoners) as well as the reason for that violent person's success (i.e. the fact that prisons do currently exist) in implementing their goals (e.g. to make profit) which in modern politics is arguably perhaps best summed by the words violent plutocracy. The second question is more pipe-dream-oriented, and thus more philosophical, which in turn runs the risk of becoming prescriptive where the first question is inherently a matter of the descriptive.

For example, as Frederick Douglass escaped slavery, it would be a very different question for him to wonder why slavery did exist at that time, than if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality that is presumably a more utopian version of the society that actually existed at the time.

The two different questions may seem to converge together to the degree one assumes the violent rulers of society are benevolent (e.g. that one is living under a benevolent dictator) and/or that society is already as utopian as practically possible, but I believe we can all easily agree such assumptions are very mistaken.

I fail to see how that answers the question, "Why do we have a criminal justice system? What is its purpose?"

The post of mine you quoted is not meant to answer 'the question' because the question itself appears to be fallacious. What you have quoted is meant to show that the question is at best unclear. It appears to fallaciously conflate two very different questions. There are two very different questions that could be asked, and it is not clear which one you are meaning to ask, and thus there is at least the risk that they get fallaciously conflated.

1. Are you asking a descriptive scientific question about why the status quo happens to be the way it is (i.e. why prisons happen to exist at the moment), which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking why slavery exists while he is escaping?

2. Or are you asking a philosophically hypothetical question (with potentially prescriptive answers) about why you and I might want something (in this case prisons) to exist or not, which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking himself if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality?

First, society prosecutes criminals, not victims.

That's not true.

The first part generally tends to be true. In other words, generally, yes, the government prosecutes alleged criminals, ipso facto. However, even in regard to that clause, it is worth nothing that government and society are not identical. Likewise, alleged criminals and actual criminals are not identical.

However, the claim that society does not prosecute victims is false--even if we isolate our consideration to people who are guilty of the crimes of which they are charged. It's worse than merely false because not only do victims get prosecuted, but also then the prosecution itself is an act of victimization.

When witches were burned at the stake, who were the victims?

Were those prosecuted by the Sondergericht victims or not?

Between 1956 and 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times. Was he not a victim?

When a pacifist marijuana smoker is arrested by armed men, convicted of criminal marijuana possession in court, and then sentenced to prison, is that pacifist not a victim?

Both psychiatric hospitals and prisons are necessary for a society to function. There are those who commit crimes due to mental illness and there are those who commit crimes because they believe that other’s lives and property are meaningless or less meaningful than their own [...]

I'm not sure the dichotomy you are proposing exists. Can you rephrase and explain your claim that prisons are needed and what they are needed for, specifically regard to the dichotomy in the OP between:

1. Non-violent non-victimizers

2. Incidental Victimizers (i.e. people who only committed criminal victimization in an extenuating circumstance in which most of us would commit such victimization, such as a starving person stealing food)

3. Mentally Sick People (i.e. people who have some kind of psychological abnormality causing them to be significantly more prone to committing victimization)

Which of those three groups are the one(s) from which you want to see people imprisoned? And do you want to see all people in that group imprisoned or just some?

[LuckyR]

First, society prosecutes criminals, not victims.

That's not true.

The first part generally tends to be true. In other words, generally, yes, the government prosecutes alleged criminals, ipso facto. However, even in regard to that clause, it is worth nothing that government and society are not identical. Likewise, alleged criminals and actual criminals are not identical.

However, the claim that society does not prosecute victims is false--even if we isolate our consideration to people who are guilty of the crimes of which they are charged. It's worse than merely false because not only do victims get prosecuted, but also then the prosecution itself is an act of victimization.

When witches were burned at the stake, who were the victims?

Were those prosecuted by the Sondergericht victims or not?

Between 1956 and 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times. Was he not a victim?

When a pacifist marijuana smoker is arrested by armed men, convicted of criminal marijuana possession in court, and then sentenced to prison, is that pacifist not a victim?

Just to be clear, I meant that victims don't prosecute criminals, society (through the government) does. This was in response to the idea that reparations to victims should be the only punishment. My point was that criminals also owe something to dociety, not just victims.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

First, society prosecutes criminals, not victims.

That's not true.

The first part generally tends to be true. In other words, generally, yes, the government prosecutes alleged criminals, ipso facto. However, even in regard to that clause, it is worth nothing that government and society are not identical. Likewise, alleged criminals and actual criminals are not identical.

However, the claim that society does not prosecute victims is false--even if we isolate our consideration to people who are guilty of the crimes of which they are charged. It's worse than merely false because not only do victims get prosecuted, but also then the prosecution itself is an act of victimization.

When witches were burned at the stake, who were the victims?

Were those prosecuted by the Sondergericht victims or not?

Between 1956 and 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 29 times. Was he not a victim?

When a pacifist marijuana smoker is arrested by armed men, convicted of criminal marijuana possession in court, and then sentenced to prison, is that pacifist not a victim?

Just to be clear, I meant that victims don't prosecute criminals, society (through the government) does. This was in response to the idea that reparations to victims should be the only punishment. My point was that criminals also owe something to society, not just victims.

that makes a lot more sense. Sorry for misunderstanding!

[GE Morton]

Please provide your sources for this claim. Please list the percentages with sources for all three of the following:

1. percentage of inmates in USA who are charged or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. violent offenders)

2. percentage of inmates in the USA who are not charge with or convicted of a violent crime (i.e. non-violent offenders)

3. percentage of inmates who are "victimizers", according to your definition of victimization, but not violent (i.e. non-violent victimizers)

If you do not mind, please provide all three percentages with sources.

All those figures are readily available from official sources. 55% of state prisoners were imprisoned for a violent crime; 17.5% for property crimes; 11.9% for "public order offenses"; 14.8% for drug offenses:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p17.pdf

(Table 12. 2016 data, latest available)

State prisoners make up 94% of the US inmate population (not counting persons held in local jails).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcera ... ted_States

As for "victimizers," I would count all violent offenders (55%), all property offenders (17.5%), and some portion of the public order offenders . . . say half. So about 78% of state prison inmates are "victimizers."

No, I am not a leftist. I was not commenting with or on leftism, but rather on the potential problems of your question itself and the potential fallacies that would result if we do not clearly distinguish between the question of why we have the current prison system that exists and why it is the way it is (a descriptive question) versus why we might want one at all if we even do.

I take the thrust of the OP's question to be whether prisons are necessary at all, not why the present system exists as it does. I think the answer to the latter question is, because we don't understand the purpose that system purports to serve.

I am not a leftist, but as I wrote in my topic Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man, I think the idea of a benevolent dictator (or worse a mob of humans acting together as a big government) is a pipe dream.

I have much sympathy for that view. Unfortunately, there is no one to whom we can turn to govern us other than ourselves.

I am not a leftist, but I believe it is very clear that the political system and government in the United States is plutocratic, violently so of course. Do you not agree?

Plutocratic? No. Violent at times? Of course. Sometimes that violence is justifiable; often it is not.

The post of mine you quoted is not meant to answer 'the question' because the question itself appears to be fallacious. What you have quoted is meant to show that the question is at best unclear. It appears to fallaciously conflate two very different questions. There are two very different questions that could be asked, and it is not clear which one you are meaning to ask, and thus there is at least the risk that they get fallaciously conflated.

Answered above.

1. Are you asking a descriptive scientific question about why the status quo happens to be the way it is (i.e. why prisons happen to exist at the moment), which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking why slavery exists while he is escaping?

No. I take the answer to that question to be obvious. They exist because they are widely thought to be necessary.

2. Or are you asking a philosophically hypothetical question (with potentially prescriptive answers) about why you and I might want something (in this case prisons) to exist or not, which would be analogous to Frederick Douglass asking himself if and why he might want (or not want) slavery to exist at all in some hypothetical future or hypothetical alternative reality?

I'm not asking that question either. Nor was the OP. His question did not inquire about anyone's wants; he asked whether prisons are needed. I take the answer to the latter to also be obvious --- as long as there are persons who victimize others, then some means of removing those persons from the society will be needed.