
Volkswagen Official Gets 7-Year Term in Diesel-Emissions Cheating - veidr
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/business/oliver-schmidt-volkswagen.html
======
tempestn
It's good that people are being held accountable, but I'm unsure that prison
is an effective mechanism here (or for many other crimes, for that matter). I
mean, what's the goal exactly? I'd say the risk of recidivism is about nil, so
it's not about protecting society from him, or about rehabilitation. So the
goal must be to discourage others from committing similar offenses. Fair
enough, but there must be a better and more efficient way to accomplish that
than locking people in a compound for several years. In this case, the
financial penalties imposed on the companies themselves seem like a more
effective tool.

~~~
bambax
Agreed. Some prison time seems warranted but 7 years seems harsh, even
considering what he did was very bad and harmful to a lot of people. (But
Americans simply love prison, apparently).

The ones who are getting off easily, IMHO, are the regulators. Their job would
be to make sure cars respect emissions limits _in all contexts_ , and that
would mean actively testing the cars in many different configurations.

How is it possible that it never occurred to anyone there, to test cars in
real-world conditions, just to make sure the results they were getting weren't
contaminated by the normal testing setup?

This is utter intellectual laziness and should incur some kind of reprimand.

Or maybe regulators should hire Mr Schmidt and put him in charge of future
testing. He would know what to look for.

~~~
InternetOfStuff
> The ones who are getting off easily, IMHO, are the regulators.

...and the politicians who are supposed to oversee them. I agree 100%.

> This is utter intellectual laziness

It's not.

Of course this was done under a laughably thin guise of impartiality ("if we
use real-world tests, we would introduce an unfair element of randomness"),
but in truth it was clear to anyone who cared that the regulations are
deliberately softened to make it easy for manufacturers.

Boring example: the European driving cycle only defines measurements up to a
top speed of 130km/h. So it's legal for manufacturers to ignore regulations
from 131km/h onwards. Why not enforce adherence up to the rated top speed?
Because... uh...

> How is it possible that it never occurred to anyone there, to test cars in
> real-world conditions

It has occurred to many people. Manufacturers have fought it tooth and nail --
I wonder why.

Even in Germany, which all but depends on its automotive industry, this is
widely considered a disgrace (except, of course, in the circles relevant to
the inception of regulations). In fact, many people consider it a strategic
mistake to go soft on the German auto industry, allowing them to fall behind.
I'm sure it'll bite them. But only after the current politicians and CEOs have
left office, so why should they care?

Grrrr.

~~~
zardo
>Boring example: the European driving cycle only defines measurements up to a
top speed of 130km/h. So it's legal for manufacturers to ignore regulations
from 131km/h onwards.

Just because it's not on the cycle, does not mean regulations don't apply. It
means they are not verifying compliance.

~~~
InternetOfStuff
Yep, but being in compliance with the regulations is defined as being in
compliance with the cycle (I agree it's dumb).

~~~
zardo
Ah, well I haven't read the euro regs, but that's not how it works in the US
or Canada.

------
nerdponx
I was really cynical once I saw that only a lower-level engineer had been
charged and convicted of wrongdoing so far. Glad to see that someone higher-up
is also being held responsible.

~~~
cies
Even higher-ups are replaceable. Gov'ts need to really catch the shareholders,
they own the misbehaving company, and they push them so hard for profits that
the workers/managers are lured into cheating the system.

~~~
gregw134
The United States used to hold stockholders accountable back in the late 19th
century, when there were many more fraudulent and poorly run industrial and
railroad companies. As a result, shareholders were so afraid of liability they
gave their voting power to "voting trusts" run by bankers, notably JP Morgan.
The banks ended up having seats on the boards of the majority of companies in
an industry and would use their position to stop companies from competing with
each other (after all, competition lowers the profits of all companies in an
industry, which makes it less likely they will be able to repay the debt they
owe to banks). The result was we ended up with monopolies in nearly
everything, from meatpacking to barbed wire to railroads...

In other words, not only would punishing shareholders be unfair and stifle
investment, it might have other unintended consequences that would hurt the
economy.

~~~
sah2ed
Any book(s) you could recommend to read more about this bit of history and the
resulting monopolies?

Thanks.

~~~
gregw134
Yeah definitely read The Robber Barons. It covers all the major tycoons of the
19th century and their financial shenanigans. A surprisingly exciting read,
full of wicked deeds. To tell one story from the book, there was a battle over
a railroad where thugs hired by opposing companies got on trains at different
stains and advanced towards each other. The trains collided and the soldiers
jumped off and fought with clubs.

The only other book I've read about the era is The House of Morgan, which
covers the history of JP Morgan bank. It's highly recommended as well. It
tells a convincing tale as bankers as the good guys (gentlemen bankers), who
funded Thomas Edison, the transatlantic cable, Charles Lindbergh's
transatlantic flight, and who raised the funds and managed the purchases
necessary to win WWI.

If anyone else has finance books to recommend I'd love to hear them.

------
ryanwaggoner
_Having been transferred back to Germany, he came to the United States for a
vacation with his wife and was seized as he waited for a departing flight in
Miami._

That was an expensive vacation.

Seriously, good to see justice served. Curious to see what Germany does to the
top execs there.

~~~
smartician
German-American here, I haven't followed the case in the German media
extensively, but there is a widespread public opinion that this was a welcome
opportunity to punish a pesky German competitor, by throwing the book at them
by the US government working together with the US auto lobby. If the same had
been done by GM for example, they don't think anyone would have went to prison
for even a day.

The other half is asking when the German justice system will finally start
their prosecution.

~~~
pcurve
"If the same had been done by GM for example, they don't think anyone would
have went to prison for even a day"

I don't disagree that the government went after VW hard, and it's very likely
that the fine would've been much lower had the same crime been perpetrated by
GM.

However, I think government took a tougher stance because VW was a foreign
company, period; not because VW was viewed as a competitor to domestic car
makers. People don't cross shop domestic and VW.

~~~
sanderjd
> People don't cross shop domestic and VW.

Huh? Don't most people just shop for ... cars?

~~~
rootusrootus
Anecdotally, not so much. My next door neighbors won't buy anything but
Toyota. The guy across the street is committed to Mopar. Friend of mine only
looks at Subarus. My mom hasn't bought a car that wasn't from GM in decades,
if ever. I'm the black sheep of the family in this regard, having owned one of
almost every brand. Except VW, haven't tried something from them yet.

~~~
BuckRogers
I grew up in a deeply GM oriented household. Ridiculous devotion IMO and it
stemmed from my dad's 1960s car era timeframe. Switching brands depends on the
person's priorities. I certainly would love to continue buying domestic but GM
has been horrendous to me from a corporate standpoint. Long story but I just
want something that's reliable and I've sworn on Mary Barra's (now defunct)
blog that I'll never buy GM again. I'm a man of my word.

I won't be buying another domestic at all again for gassers. If I get another
ICE it'll be a Honda Civic, always liked them and they finally have a
hatchback which is my preferred style. That said my wife just got a Suburu
Crosstrek and my next car is a Tesla Model 3. I'm expecting fit and finish and
maybe minor issues with the Tesla but overall I believe it's time to move to
electric and never look back.

I don't say this too often about too many things but I'm very eager to hand
Tesla money as I believe in the mission(s) that Musk is on. Tesla being a
domestic corporation doens't hurt at all either. I don't own any stock.

~~~
rootusrootus
I swore I'd never buy another domestic. And now I drive a Chevy. First one I
ever bought myself, to be honest (my first vehicle was a Chevy pickup, but it
was a gift from my dad so that doesn't count...). I love the reliability of
the Japanese cars I've owned, but there are certain cars that you can't buy
from anybody but Ford and GM. And so I find myself driving a Camaro SS 1LE.
Paragon of reliability it is not, but egads is it quick.

I've owned a fair number of Subies and probably am going back to them for my
next daily driver. Unless I get something like a Bolt. Can't see myself happy
with a Model 3, I've owned too many cars with touchscreens and I dislike 'em.

~~~
BuckRogers
I could see some people swaying back and forth, not me though. I had a
Firebird Formula in the 90s, 2800RPM stall converter, Keith Black forged
pistons, LT1 hotcam kit (or LT4 don't recall at this point), etc, I know what
that stuff is all about, been there. I've really had it with low(er) quality
vehicles going into the shop. I'm willing to pay more for a less feature-
filled, basic car that has a higher probability of not seeing the shop. I'm
done.

The one exception is the Tesla stuff, and that's because they're paving the
way forward and I want to support it. If I made enough money, I'd stretch my
budget and already have a Model S (anyone hiring?). I fully expect them to be
slightly problematic. I don't use the most stable software on my computer at
all times either. :) Rebooting the computer and dragging the car into the shop
are two different levels of inconvenience. Being domestic does help Tesla in
my book. We'll be happy with our Subaru alongside. And never ruling out Honda
Civics, while I hate modded ones, a nice base 40MPG+ Civic always got my
engine pumpin. I get a kick out of efficiency as much as I do horsepower.

Anyway, I'm certainly an example of crossing "lines" in the auto industry.
From Pontiac domestic powerhouse to Honda gas sipper to Tesla electric. GM
screwed me over multiple times, financially, broken promises from them. That
corporation has no use for me to even stay alive, won't get another cent from
me. And if I'm not buying GM, why bother with Ford/Chrysler which are also
inferior quality to the Korean/Japanese stuff. But crossing mental buying-
boundaries, I don't care, I mostly just don't want to wrench or have my car
wrenched on frequently.

------
loeg
> He had a base salary of $130,000, received bonuses of at least $40,000, and
> had a net worth over $1 million

That's executive pay at VW?

~~~
staticelf
Well, for an european that is a pretty good salary. Remember, we don't have to
pay for a lot of shit us-citizens needs to do.

I earn way less than that (like half and with no bonuses) and I still have the
best salary of everyone I know at my age.

For example, my grandfather was flown by helicopter to the hospital, got a
surgery and was in recovery for about 3 days and it cost him about $20.

~~~
loeg
Nevertheless, it's far less than actual top executives at VW are paid. In
2016, the CEO made €7.2 million, another member of the management board made
over €10 million, and several other executives made over €3 million[0]. Of
that, about €1-1.5 million is fixed salary (aside from the huge outlier of
Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt at €7.3 million). $130k (€110k) salary and
especially total compensation at ~$170k (€144k) totally pales in comparison.

This guy was small fry in the VW management structure.

[0]: [http://annualreport2016.volkswagenag.com/group-management-
re...](http://annualreport2016.volkswagenag.com/group-management-
report/remuneration-report/board-of-management-remuneration.html)

------
mcv
Good. Too often, top executives seem to be above the law. They need to be held
accountable.

But I can't help but get the impression that many countries only seem to
punish foreign companies. I don't think Germany is punishing German
executives, are they? Nor the US punishing American executives?

~~~
ehnto
It was my understanding that the investigation in Germany is ongoing and being
quite thorough, which is why it feels like nothing is happening. It might just
be taking some time.

~~~
Tomte
And of course there is much more to investigate. Many more suspects in
Germany, many more offices to raid, many more documents to read.

That the US trials were faster is no surprise.

------
foobar1962
I'm thinking the only suitable punishment for something like this is to ban
the company's products from sale for a long period of time. VW-corp isn't
hurting from some executive or engineer being incarcerated.

~~~
Arg0naut
No.

That would negatively impact all the employees that had no input or knowledge.

Punish the decision makers and the ones who knew about it.

~~~
watwut
All of them benefited from cheating exactly the same way they would be
"punished" now.

If we don't punish institution itself, companies are motivated to hire and
promote the people ok with small risk of jail in exchange of money and status.
Which is exactly what is happening.

------
coldtea
> Mr. Schmidt did not identify any Volkswagen superiors who might have
> pressured him to lie to regulators.

So, a guy that takes the fall so that the superiors can get scratch free.

This can involve anything from some guarantees of financial security post-
prison and favorable push for "early exit" from prison, to blackmail and
threats for the person's family.

~~~
jstanley
OK, and how would it look if that weren't the case? If superiors hadn't
pressured him?

It would look exactly the same.

~~~
coldtea
Yes, but the probability of such a show of loyalty to, nothing really, except
maybe the principle of not being a snitch, would be dropping very low.

~~~
jstanley
What I'm saying is how do you know the guy isn't telling the truth? How do you
know it wasn't his idea all along?

~~~
coldtea
Because it doesn't make sense.

This is about the car-maker, the company, saving money.

Why would we have an idea about that without being either told and/or
compensated for it?

He was worried that VW pays too much for proper emissions tech, even though it
didn't concern him personally in any financial stake?

------
tantalor
Nit: I don't like use of "official" for a non-governmental position. What
public office does this person hold? Use "executive" instead.

------
SCdF
> Having been transferred back to Germany, he came to the United States for a
> vacation with his wife and was seized as he waited for a departing flight in
> Miami. Why he risked arrest by traveling to the United States remains a
> mystery.

Because he presumed that he was untouchable?

------
ams6110
Seems excessive to me. 7 years is more than many violent offenders get. Way
more than necessary to make the point.

~~~
kharms
According to this[0] MIT study, the excess emissions will cause 60 premature
deaths. If you commit 60 violent offenses you can expect well over 7 years in
jail.

Edit: 60 in the US, many more globally.

[0] [http://news.mit.edu/2015/volkswagen-emissions-cheat-
cause-60...](http://news.mit.edu/2015/volkswagen-emissions-cheat-
cause-60-premature-deaths-1029)

~~~
dghughes
>the excess emissions will cause 60 premature deaths.

That's probably true but that point seems to be used as a jab to sell
newspapers, at the very least it's inflammatory. Meanwhile, two-stroke
engines, older diesel engines, airplanes using leaded avgas may be as bad as
the ten million slightly off tune VWs. And I say this as a person with a
parent very ill with lung disease COPD and IPF.

I'm not saying the exec deserves to go free but seven years is excessive. Even
manslaughter (in my country) gets you two years which means you go to prison,
in the US I think that's called a felony.

~~~
jackvalentine
> Meanwhile, two-stroke engines, older diesel engines, airplanes using leaded
> avgas may be as bad as the ten million slightly off tune VWs.

But these aren't illegal.

The point about the deaths is "it was specifically illegal and they did it
anyway, with these quantifiable consequences".

~~~
donatj
As if illegal and right are connected in any way.

~~~
CydeWeys
In this case they are. These air quality laws exist to prevent people of dying
from preventable air pollution. These aren't ethically murky waters like
victimless crime drug laws we're talking about here.

------
stevenwliao
It's interesting that the executive received more jail time than the engineer
(7 years vs 40 months).

~~~
Trav5
I was thinking it was interesting the engineer received jail time. I've not
researched at all, but I could see someone performing a job and having
management tell them that it's all good with some over-their-head legal
explanation, even though it does not seem like it to the engineer.

It's neat to see jail time trickle down though, seems like a better deterrent
than a financial cost. It seems to me that it would be easier to believe the
financial cost would not hit you, that you could get out of it or not have the
cash. Where a jail time potential would make me think twice about anything
potentially shady.

~~~
abraae
I think if the engineer had an email from management telling them "it's all
good" then the engineer would probably be off the hook.

------
Dowwie
Is there a chance for early release? This 7 year sentence could become 10
months.

~~~
tptacek
Not really; there's no federal parole, just good behavior time.

~~~
daveguy
Federal time is usually ~ 80% time served and state/local ~ 20-30% before
parole.

------
sambeau
It's worth bearing this statistic in mind as we discuss this:

38,000 people a year die early because of diesel emissions testing failures.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/15/diesel-e...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/15/diesel-
emissions-test-scandal-causes-38000-early-deaths-year-study)

~~~
dumbneurologist
thank you for bringing this up; I wasn't aware exactly how high the costs of
cheating really were.

but it's tremendously important: what would we say about a person who killed
or contributed directly to the killing of 38,000 people?

your fact seems less "real" because it's a statistical individual, but they
are morally equivalent.

------
erikb
It sounds to me like a German name, is he from there? Then how is it possible
that the US judges this single person directly in the US?

He should be sent back to Germany, trialed there, and the US can only sue the
company. Everything else is a huge violation according to US thinking even.

Think about China would jail and trial a US citizen that is doing on business
for Google in China.

------
partycoder
7 years is not enough.

This is a global-scale fraud including long term environmental side-effects.

Those vehicles are still out there and will be circulating for at least 10
more years.

This guy should dry in jail.

------
zerr
Interesting, in US do white-collar criminals have separate prisons, or do they
sit with murderers, rapists, mobsters, etc..?

------
sftp
Really glad consequences are being held for a person who also benefited from
it before.

------
roflcake11
Nice. What about Equifax? Or only European enterprises are to be held
accountable?

------
donatj
While the actions were certainly dishonest, I have misgivings about the
actually illegalality of it.

Certainly the court disagrees with me, but in my mind it ran to standards
within the requirements of the test, it meets the requirements. Seems like the
test is flawed to me.

~~~
brandonbloom
That's not how the law works; intent matters. It's not enough for the tests to
pass or for some proof to hold. These things are artifacts of some underlying
human objectives.

~~~
donatj
Was the intent though not to meet the requirements? There are lots of cases
where things meet the word of the law but just and it’s fine; word of the law
matters as well as intent.

~~~
beagle3
If I understand correctly (and I might be wrong), the intent was to pass the
test, despite failing in the real world conditions that the test is supposed
to control for.

------
jfaucett
Its odd to me how many people in this thread are either for or against this
decision, not based on a fixing a problem rationale but on moral grounds that
this person deserved or didn't deserve the punishment.

Does your computer program deserve to be debugged, fixed, and recompiled when
it has thrown an error? What would that even mean? Was it evil or bad because
it didn't perform how we wanted it to?

~~~
geofft
I do not understand how the second paragraph of your reply is related to the
first. Computer programs (currently) do not respond to incentives, nor do they
react to available resources in any way other than the way in which the
resource provider explicitly changes them. So the idea of "deserving" does not
apply, but it does apply to entities that respond to incentives or consume and
make use of resources in complex/emergent ways.

If we had strong AI, then yes, certain strong AIs would be more deserving of
resources from the commons than others - that's exactly what MIRI is working
on.

And if you step back from "program" to "project" (meaning the whole system of
code + the autonomous decisions of humans, including groups of humans working
as companies, to continue developing the code), then yes, certain projects do
deserve to be fixed more than others do. A particularly difficult crash in
Python 3.6 is much more worth debugging than one in Python 2.4, which in turn
is much more worth debugging than one in GW-BASIC, because the net benefit for
humanity in exchange for the opportunity cost varies widely.

~~~
jfaucett
My point has to do with the notion of retributive justice i.e. that punishment
should be inflicted because the criminal deserves it - in a quasi-religious
sense i.e. he is evil or deserving of hell. This usually carries along notions
of moral good and evil that are almost never grounded in measurements to give
them real meanings.

Conversely, I think people should think about crime in a more reinforcement
learning approach i.e. rehabilitative.

I view humans as machines essentially. If a machine breaks you fix it, but
there is no emotional garbage attached.

That's the concept I was trying to get across.

~~~
geofft
I agree that punishment as retribution is a poor way to run a civilized
society. But punishment as incentive structure fits the framework of
"deserving" just fine - full participation in human society is a privilege,
not a right, and extending that privilege to people who will hurt society is a
poor use of resources. And _credibly_ threatening not to extend that privilege
will cause people to try to be the sort of person who "deserves" not to be
punished.

Viewing humans as machines doesn't work precisely because humans have agency.
A machine generally does not decide to break, and a machine generally can be
properly fixed (or if it can't, it's obvious). Attempting to convince a
machine that it will suffer some negative consequence for misbehavior is
unlikely to have any results at all.

Meanwhile, especially for humans making decisions about corporate strategy
(which means that they're in a culture that's pretty firmly incentivized
towards "is this profitable"), credibly convincing them that they will suffer
punishment is a great way to change their behavior and prevent them from
_deciding_ to do something unwanted. And one way to credibly convince people
that they will suffer punishment for an action is to actually punish people
who do the same thing.

It's very unlikely this executive will make the same mistake again, punishment
or no punishment. Rehabilitation isn't the point. But we need to make an
example of them, and I say that without the slightest shred of emotion.

~~~
jfaucett
Basically, I don't accept what you and most people accept - that humans have
free will, we could have made a choice X instead of Y, etc, etc.

I know its not a popular opinion, and I don't expect to convince you of my
views in a couple sentences, but generally speaking I think the notion of
punishment should always be viewed in the context of societal functioning.

If we do as you suggest and punish an executive, does that actually lead to
decreased occurances? If so by how much? What about the next time it occurs?
Can we completely prevent another occurance? Can we decrease its probability?
At what costs to the person and society? What caused it in the first place?

These are all much more important questions to mold a system of punishment
than our current focus which almost completely lacks any measurements and
analyses and is still steeped in vague moralities derived from historical
accident and our own intuitions which are perforated with biases and flaws.

~~~
geofft
> _Basically, I don 't accept what you and most people accept - that humans
> have free will, we could have made a choice X instead of Y, etc, etc._

My argument does not rely on free will at all. (If you notice, I have made the
argument that the same thing _would_ apply to AIs, and I am certainly not
arguing that AIs have free will.)

My argument simply relies on two assumptions: first, that the agent in
question sorta-rationally responds to incentives, and second, that the agent
in question believes that punishment applied to other, similar agents after
certain actions also could apply to them, if they take the same action.

If a human believes that they can make a better outcome themselves by doing
action A instead of not doing action A, they will likely do so. Concretely, if
an employee believes that they will cause a better outcome for the company
_and_ get rewarded for it personally by taking an action, with little risk,
they will likely do so. This is borne out by evidence almost as plenteous as
evidence that humans require food to live; it needs no controlled study. This
happens _all the time_ and essentially all productivity under capitalism
requires this to hold up.

If a human believes that action A brings significant risk to themselves, they
will probably refrain from doing so. And the convincing threat of prison time
does actually cause humans to refrain from actions. fThis is _also_ borne out
by everyday life; there are plenty of outright illegal things you can do to
make your company significantly more profitable, like poisoning your
competitors, that happen extremely rarely.

So I don't understand why you are questioning "Does punishment as deterrent
work?" from first principles, as if it is not settled. Do you disagree with
the arguments above? I have to say that if you do, I feel like I am arguing
with someone who disagrees that food is required for humans to live. I
certainly _can_ defend that position logically, I would just feel ridiculous
doing so.

Nothing about changing incentives requires free will - it is a simple if
statement to say, if risk outweighs reward, refrain, else proceed. You do not
need any free will to potentially act contrary to the if statement. I would
think if you believe people _don 't_ have free will, it makes this argument
easier.

(In terms of morality, I am the sort of Christian who believes that every
prisoner should be set free and that Christ has redeemed every last human,
regardless of what they did, and that if every last murderer and rapist went
to heaven, I would join them in singing praises because I wouldn't deserve to
be there one bit more than they would. If you go just a week or two back in my
comments on this site, you'll find me asking if I am morally/religiously
compelled to work for the end of prisons. But I am not making a moral argument
in this thread, and I hope it's clear that the argument I'm making is wildly
divorced from my morality - I am trying to acknowledge that it is _rational_
to imprison people as punishment, even as I believe that it is immoral to do
so.)

~~~
jfaucett
So I think we're just talking by one another and about different concepts
entirely. I'm not questioning whether punishment as a deterrent works at all.
Obviously it does. I guess my emphasis on the morality imperative implicitly
led people to believe I was indeed questioning the notion of punishment as a
deterrent. I think, given a better medium and more time, we could have cleared
this up much better. At any rate now I'm actually interested in how you
arrived at your prison views, since religious rationalizations puzzle me
endlessly and I'm always out to see if a religous person who arrives at a good
conclusion in my view has any insight to offer me in convincing other
religious people to change their ideas as well.

~~~
geofft
> _At any rate now I 'm actually interested in how you arrived at your prison
> views_

Three things (and, note, I currently hold this position weakly and welcome
further thoughts that either oppose or support it):

1\. There is no story in the Bible, to my knowledge, of prison being used by
people the Bible calls good. There are a few places where someone is
imprisoned and God uses the situation for good - Daniel in the lion's den,
Paul and Silas in the prison of Phillipi, etc. - but you never see e.g. Moses
or David or anyone say to build a prison or to put someone in confinement, as
far as I recall.

2\. Nothing in Mosaic law (again, that I know of) talks about prison as a
means for punishment / correction. You put people to death for offenses that
we wouldn't consider capital today, sure. You exile them. You certainly have
them pay restitution. But there's no Biblical command that a moral society
should even have a prison.

3\. There are plenty of passages like Isaiah 61, "to proclaim liberty to the
captives and the opening of the prison to those who are bound," Matthew 25, "I
was in prison and you came to visit me," etc. that seem to have an underlying
assumption that everyone who is in prison is there unjustly. Even if they're
meant to be read metaphorically, the metaphor only works right if you think of
prison as unequivocally bad. There's no sense that some people deserve the
experience of being in prison, or that justice requires leaving some people in
prison.

Therefore, I have trouble seeing a society that puts people in prison and
calls it moral as in accordance with a Biblical view of morality. Of course
the whole idea that Western civilization is built on "Judeo-Christian" morals
is flimsy in many ways, but for prison in particular, there seems to be a
particular lack of support.

~~~
dragonwriter
Prison—as distinct from captivity that is primarily slavery for the benefit
(economic or, for some high-status captives, prestige) of the captor—is a
fairly modern thing, and economically unviable in ancient societies
independent of its moral dimension.

