If it is debtors' prison, then there is a very serious theological problem. In the past, in many countries there were debtors' prisons where people who were seriously in debt were confined until they paid their debts. The problem, if course, is that being in prison deprived them of any honest means of earning money, not merely to pay their debts, but also to clothe and feed themselves. In addition, there were administrative costs associated with imprisonment. The net result was that, in due time, governments realized that debtors' prisons were quite counterproductive and a drain on the government budget.
England got very smart about it shortly after the discovery of Australia at the end of the eighteenth century. The English government emptied its debtors' prisons (but kept workhouses, which were not debtors' prisons at all) and transported its prisoners to Australia where they were expected to fend for themselves. Thus, Australia's origins were as a penal colony for the mother country. Many died on the way or after they arrived as they were not at all equipped to meet their own need in a very strange and hostile land.
The simple fact is, that whether one owes a billion dollars or a single penny and if one is place in a prison where it is impossible to created any form of money, one will be there until an exceedingly warm place freezes solidly over. Thus, this argument in favor of a temporary place of punishment is utter rubbish.
Upvote
0
