It's not about bad or less bad, it's about risk to people.
A violent criminal poses greater risk of harm, and thus is locked up. A non violent criminal can commit very many offences, and sometimes those offences cause great distress (fraud which removes a person's life savings, for example), and their access to the tools of their criminal trade should be restricted, but that doesn't usually require solitary confinement.
I would argue solitary is the only rationale option for non-violent crime like this - anything less requires the person to respect limitations on communication they can circumvent if they want.
There are sometimes legitimate concerns, but I think they tend to be overblown in the case of computer crime. Along the lines of the insane worries that Kevin Mitnick couldn't be granted access to a phone because he might hack teh USA by whistling into the phone, I think there is often a weird witchcraft-style reaction to computer crime, where the defendant is seen as some kind of nearly omnipotent wizard.
ummm.... I thought violent criminals are kept in solitary confinement because they are dangerous to their fellow inmates. A hacker may be able to cause more harm to more people IF he is outside and has a computer. He can't exactly destroy the lives of other inmates while he is in prison...
First of all, let's be clear that risk of fraud to an individual is often as harmful, if not more harmful, than risk of violence to an individual. Fraud that takes out a person's entire life savings, even if the victim doesn't commit suicide, typically does more lasting damage than, say, the average case of assault and battery. And that's not just true with identity theft. Stealing money alone can cause people to commit suicide as in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
So then the question becomes which type of criminal is more likely to commit more crimes if not in solitary confinement. Obviously it depends on the specific kind of criminal but in general, I'd say perpetrators of fraud if they have Internet access and violent criminals if they don't have Internet access.
That's absolutely true. I was not commenting on whether or not they need solitary confinement. I was stating that the claim in your second paragraph--that violent criminals almost always pose more danger to society than non-violent criminals--is not true. It would seem several people strongly disagreed with me...
Fraud that takes out a person's entire life savings, even
if the victim doesn't commit suicide, typically does more
lasting damage than, say, the average case of assault and
battery.
I disagree with you in every possible way, and I think you've just decided, off the top of your head, to make that up because you think it sounds good. You might be able to google some statistics, but I'm not drinking your kool-aid.
Assault resulting in serious injury is categorically worse than fraud or identity theft, and far more common.
> I disagree with you in every possible way, and I think you've just decided, off the top of your head, to make that up because you think it sounds good.
That tone was completely uncalled for, and assuming you were the one who downvoted me, downvoting me for disagreeing was equally uncalled for. This isn't reddit.
> You might be able to google some statistics, but I'm not drinking your kool-aid.
If you're going on gut feel rather than providing any statistics to the contrary, don't criticize me for going on gut feel.
> Assault resulting in serious injury is categorically worse than fraud or identity theft
I agree that assault resulting in long-term or permanent injury is generally worse than monetary fraud and perhaps partial identity theft (using one's information to commit an isolated instance of fraud). However, it's certainly not "categorically worse" than all forms of fraud or identity theft. Even breaking someone's legs (one of the worst forms of [non-sexual] assault) generally ruins a person's life less than full identity theft and, by definition, less than stealing so much from someone that they are driven to suicide.
> and far more common
If you mean some class of assault is more common than some class of fraud or identity theft, I don't know if you're right or wrong, but that has no bearing on the rate at which a particular criminal will commit repeat offenses.
If on the other hand you meant that assault in which there's serious injury is the most common kind of assault, we'd have to consult Google but that seems highly improbable.
A violent criminal poses greater risk of harm, and thus is locked up. A non violent criminal can commit very many offences, and sometimes those offences cause great distress (fraud which removes a person's life savings, for example), and their access to the tools of their criminal trade should be restricted, but that doesn't usually require solitary confinement.