To most people, seeing people doing intentional evil (and even getting rich off it) seems viscerally worse than harm due to natural causes.
I think from a ruthless expected utility perspective, this probably is correct in the abstract, i.e. all else equal, murder is worse than equivalently painful accidental death. However I doubt taking it into account (and even being very generous about things like “illegible corrosion to the social fabric”) would importantly change your conclusions about $/QALY in this case, because all else is not equal.
But, I think the distinction is probably worth making, as it’s a major difference between criminal justice reform and the two baselines for comparison.
This consideration seems like it could go both ways. It is true that most people think that intentionally done harm is worse than non-anthropogenic or accidental harms… but they tend to also believe that it is inherently good to punish criminals!
From a ruthless expected utility perspective, it’s the case that we might want to let some criminals out early, because it harms them to be imprisoned. To my recollection this cost was the largest line item in OP’s cost-benefit analysis. But for those with a more justice-orientated perspective, harming criminals is not a disadvantage: retribution is a core part of the criminal justice system and it is an actively good thing to ensure they get their just deserts.
Unlike poverty and disease, many of the harms of the criminal justice system are due to intentional cruelty. People are raped, beaten, and tortured every day in America’s jails and prisons. There are smaller cruelties, too, like prohibiting detainees from seeing visitors in order to extort more money out of their families.
To most people, seeing people doing intentional evil (and even getting rich off it) seems viscerally worse than harm due to natural causes.
I think from a ruthless expected utility perspective, this probably is correct in the abstract, i.e. all else equal, murder is worse than equivalently painful accidental death. However I doubt taking it into account (and even being very generous about things like “illegible corrosion to the social fabric”) would importantly change your conclusions about $/QALY in this case, because all else is not equal.
But, I think the distinction is probably worth making, as it’s a major difference between criminal justice reform and the two baselines for comparison.
This consideration seems like it could go both ways. It is true that most people think that intentionally done harm is worse than non-anthropogenic or accidental harms… but they tend to also believe that it is inherently good to punish criminals!
From a ruthless expected utility perspective, it’s the case that we might want to let some criminals out early, because it harms them to be imprisoned. To my recollection this cost was the largest line item in OP’s cost-benefit analysis. But for those with a more justice-orientated perspective, harming criminals is not a disadvantage: retribution is a core part of the criminal justice system and it is an actively good thing to ensure they get their just deserts.
Thanks for expressing the compassionate case succinctly.