I am waiting with delicious anticipation for the comments.

How about they propose to build a facility with just enough beds -- not one more -- to hold the number of kids who would be jailed even if they were all rich and white.

Way to take the high road, Sean. I'll never understand how journalists who insult their readers ever keep their jobs.

@2 Yes let's budget for (unknowable number) at (unknowable cost). Sounds like policy making at its finest.

Furthermore, let's use fixed facilities that do not change size and shape at will to change size and shape because our goal is to have exactly (u knowable number) of beds, which is also a quantity that fluctuates in time!

I have long agreed with your basic position on this Dan. I think getting to "zero incarcerated youth" is unrealistic.

On the one hand, we absolutely should reduce incarceration as much as possible. We absolutely need to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system (for adults as well as youth). We absolutely need to develop better community based support and treatment as alternatives to incarceration whenever possible.

On the other hand, you can't NOT incarcerate minors who commit violent crimes such as murder or rape. And you can't lock them up in adult prisons.

The city and county have already done a lot to reduce incarceration of minors, and it looks like they are continuing that effort. And they should. It would be great if we can further reduce incarceration of minors. But we'll never get to zero. There will always be at least a small number of minors for whom incarceration is the only appropriate solution.

There are always going to be children who will need to be locked up, at least temporarily. And the sad fact is that for a certain segment of those kids, a good juvenile facility is probably a better environment than whatever "home" they came from (I direct you to the minors who killed the people in the Jungle earlier this year)

This "cause" is unrealistic, irresponsible, and counter-productive. It makes liberals and progressives look stupid, and causes needless infighting when we need to be focusing our energies on what is going on in DC. We are too far down along the road to cancel the project without significant financial penalty and waste of tax dollars, the facility is desperately needed, and if we succeed in further reducing the number of minors who need detention, then the worst thing we've done is built a building that is obsolete.

Murray needs to get himself out of the way and let this proceed.

You're right, of course. If kids are arrested for murder, rape, or gun crimes, we need a youth jail. They are, and we do.

@4

So what number of beds are you happy with? You have some number that you think is dead on accurate? Or does your skepticism evaporate when you're told the number of beds will be "a fucking shit ton of room to lock up every kid and his dog and his whole family". That bullshit flies with you? But a *small* number? Oh, no, if it's a small number, then you demand facts!

See the double standard?

If they can't even figure out who is a danger to society that must be locked up, and who is being chewed up by a mindless system that only sees a brown body, then they are in no position to argue that they know we need this facility. They either know, or they don't.

They're saying "There are *always* some kids who *have* to be locked up." How do they know? Do they know? If they know there are, they ought to know how many. Don't know how many? Then you don't know shit. Come back when you do.

If you want to play the role of protector of society, the role of one who bears the burden of revoking the freedom and well-being of a few for the benefit of the many, then you have to be worthy of great trust. These protests are proof that these "authorities" have lost that trust. Better to have no authority at all than an authority that isn't worthy of trust.

@11, How about asking the basis for the choice they did make? What cost is appropriate to not have to worry about sending kids to other communities or to King Co. lock up? What are the requirements to segregate population segments, by gender/sex, by offense, etc.? What is the annual high and the annual low?

How about putting as an ounce of the thought into the criticism as is required to put in place a logical and consistent policy.

The reason why we have courts is to examine the individual determinants of behavior.

The question isn't what do we do with (presumably all) youth who attempt to kill. The question is, what do we do with this one individual child who attempted to kill?

That requires us to look at their lives. If the kid attempted to kill because his/her parents were abusive and this was the only avenue of escape open to them, I wouldn't convict them. I'd place them in a loving home and try to undo the damage and hurt caused by their lifetime of abuse. If the kid did it because they were being manipulated, then let's get them away from the manipulator. If it was because mommy left a loaded gun in her purse, are you going to jail a toddler for reaching in and playing with what you thought was a toy? If it's because of years and years of police harassment of youth because they're African American or Hispanic, or because of a culture that leaves young people few options other than taking matters into their own hands (9-11 doesn't respond when called in that neighborhood, or the cops turn a blind eye, then who's really to blame here? The institutions that create an environment favoring violence as a form of self-help, or the children that act on that culture of fear and neglect?

We MUST address the root causes of crime. Poverty causes crime. Racism causes crime. This hyper-masculinized machismo that predominates in our society causes crime. The president-elect suggesting that he can just grab any woman he wants by the twat causes crime. Hey, if Trump can do it, why can't we is an attitude many youth are going to adopt, and we, the adults who didn't stop Trump are to blame for that, not the kids.

If you want to stop youth from conducting crime, work to end poverty and income inequality. Give every kid in this state a decent school and a safe neighborhood to play in, job prospects that are worth working toward, and a culture that encourages them to talk about their feelings rather than shooting somebody. Parents who abuse their children forfeit their right to be parents. And anyone who teaches a young man by example that women are mere objects to be used for sexual pleasure or punching bags for relieving a man's frustration should be called out and humiliated for promoting such a disgusting attitude.

The problem isn't the kids. The problem is us.

It seems to me that the city has laid out a blue print for exactly what people want -- very few (if any) minors incarcerated. But to get there, you need to spend money. You need facilities, counseling, outreach -- the whole nine yards. But this is precisely what the new facility is designed to accommodate. The plan is to build the facility, and then move gradually from incarceration to rehabilitation -- all the while spending a lot more money on preventing the problem for the next generation. It is all right there, in the article that was quoted:

... a juvenile detention center that cuts the county’s juvenile detention bed count in half, while adding space for a King County Library site, a spiritual center, mental health services and an activity room dedicated to creative writing, yoga, improv performance training and mentoring programs. It’s also designed flexibly so that if the juvenile detention population continues to decline, more bed halls can be converted into non-detention program space.

There is another aspect of this that folks aren't addressing. To answer Dan's question, I know what they do with youth's that attempt to kill if you don't have proper facilities -- they treat them like adults. It is possible that drug offenders and even some accused of property crimes (stealing cars and the like) are dismissed, but those accused of murder, attempted murder, rape or other brutal assaults aren't going to be free to wander around. They will be locked up with adults. I don't see that as being better for anyone.

This all reminds me of the argument over the new police station. I can understand if you think that we shouldn't spend that much money on the thing -- or rather, spend way more money on other, more effective things -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't build it. The current situation isn't very good, and even if we did magically find the money to spend on those other things, it will be a while before they ripple through society and we have less need for these facilities.

As with many huge follies, from the Iraq War to the SR99 tunnel, to the bunker police station, you have to stop it in its tracks if you want to change direction. These big projects take on this air of inevitability once they've rammed it through to a point where they can say "we have to do something!" Bureaucrats call this kind of self-justifying boondoggle a "self-licking ice cream cone".

The propaganda creates a false choice between going all in for this huge fucking mess, or doing nothing. They quickly gloss over sleight-of-hand decisions like taking the size of the current facility and dividing by 2. What the hell is that number based on?

Saying "no new youth jail" is about demanding better. Tell us exactly how many of these kids are so dangerous that you must have someplace to lock them up. Give us that number, and show us where you got it. Then we'll talk.

@16 it sounds like youre looking for court data, and answers from the judges, not the jailers. The jailers don't get to determine if people have to stay with them, or the reasons why (brown, white, or otherwise). Not building a jail doesn't prevent people from being sentenced.

Also, if you are interested in their math, Id try to get a hold of those emails/docs. You should be able to request them.

@17

The jailers? This isn't their decision. This is a political decision. If politicians want this new jail, they need to show their work. The burden rests on those who would take the extreme step of locking kids up. Once this thing is built and all these beds exist, they will find a use. Everyone will fall back into complacency and the investment we made will demand, and will receive, something to justify itself.

The time is now or never.

You guys keep insisting how necessary and inevitable all these incarcerations of kids are, but you don't cite shit. How can you be so positive you're right yet not have a single fact about it in your head. At least admit you don't fucking know and stay out of it.

I'm a special education teacher who works in a Juvenile Detention facility in California. I used to live in Seattle and was a Sped teacher who worked with kids with Emotional Disabilities in a large public school, and many of my students were involved in the juvenile justice system. So I can speak to the experience of working with these young people on both the ins and the outs.

First off, I will say I love my job. This is the only job that could have tempted me back into Special Education after the pulverizing experience I had working with the same population on the outs. I did that job for three years, with little support, and I ended up having a nervous breakdown.

I took this job because I saw both how disruptive detention was to my students' lives, and how difficult it is to work with them in a general education setting when they have access to drugs and chaotic home lives that everyday re-trigger behaviors that make it impossible for them to really function in school. Working with kids in a facility is fascinating, challenging, heat-breaking, and rewarding but ultimately it feels so much more productive that working with them on the outs. The kids are well-fed, well-rested, well-exercised, drug free, and (when appropriate) taking prescribed medication regularly. They are available for learning in a way that they aren't while on the outs.

What's more, the juvenile justice programs that kids are sentenced to in CA aren't just, "Lock em up, give em time, let em out." Youth offenders are often sentenced to programs that address addiction, family dysfunction, anger management, etc.The focus is on rehabilitation and reintegration with the community. This may be different in Washington, but if this new facility is being designed with reduced populations and increased access for alternative programs in mind, I would imagine WA has a similar approach to juvenile justice.

I believe in reducing prison populations; this is one reason I do this job, because I want to be part of the intervention that diverts kids from jail and I'm someone who likes to work within systems to change them. Reduction will take a multifaceted approach that addresses such areas income inequality, poverty, education, prenatal care, parenting, addiction, education, etc. And while I do believe we can drastically reduce the prison population, I don't believe we can eliminate it entirely. There are just some people who are not safe to have in society, and this has been confirmed for my by working with youth offenders.

The vast majority of juvenile offenders' lives are defined by chaos, abuse, neglect, or at the very least poor boundaries. There are some, however, who come from perfectly good homes.

My student with the most serious charge (murdering his sister) was raised in an upper-middle class home with, from all accounts, attentive and loving parents. He had all the resources of such an upbringing. His parents are white, he is mixed race and was adopted. His psychological profile is sociopathic; he admits he has no feelings or empathy. He's fine to work with, he does his work, is calm and compliant and follows the rules. I don't think he regrets killing his sister; I don't know if he can. What do you do with someone like that?

My other student who I have the most serious concerns about was also adopted and comes from a very good home. However, he is the result of a severely drug-impacted pregnancy that damaged his brain. He struggles to control violent impulses. I have absolutely no doubt that if he had access to a gun, he would kill someone (as of yet he's only caused others head trauma; I'm not sure if it lead to brain damage). He's not safe to be in society, but we don't really have the appropriate place for him.

The other thing about my kiddos is--yes, they have come from rough circumstances. Yes, they are young. But they have made choices that have really hurt other people. My students have murdered, assaulted, raped, and traumatized other people. I forget this sometimes, because I like them a lot, and I see the good and the potential in them.

So what do we do? The answer is complex and progress will take a long time. But you start by treating juvenile offenders with respect and dignity. By helping them meet their needs physiological and emotional needs. And by teaching them how to be people in the world. A newer facility might facilitate that, especially if it's designed to provide transitional services.

I would urge people who are opposed to jailing juveniles to get involved from the inside, because we need those perspectives on the inside. There are volunteer groups that work with juvenile offenders. Meet the kids. Get to know them. Learn about what they need. See them as individual people, rather than political footballs.

I hope everyone reads @20 very carefully

@19

Like if the whites only drinking fountain is broken, we "need" a new one? And, yes, this is about racism. As long as they're letting white teens go free for the same things that non-whites are jailed for, this is a racist institution. Tear it down.

And if you really think we "need a replacement" then you're saying we "need" 250 beds? How do you know? Do you know anything about this? It's inertia.

Dan Savage has asserted that he has identified one (1) youth who should be locked up. That justifies a 1 bed facility.

The last numbers the Stranger published said that there are an average of 22 kids in jail for violent crimes. Even if that is the only data you use (and that's crude, and I'd ask for verification), that's one sixth the 120 beds they want. They're going to fill that space with somebody if it's there. And if not, why a facility six times (at least) what we need?

If you think the daily average of 22 could be exceeded, then justify it. How many is the most violent offenders you expect on a given day? 30? 50? How do you know? You have no right to set in motion this kind of system that mindlessly destroys lives if you literally have no idea what the justification is.

@22 I think part of the justification for the size is that there needs to be separation of different populations and you can't predict exactly how many of one population will be there. I get the concern about jails filling the empty spaces but this seems a bit different than a for-profit prison demanding the state supply them with inmates.

Savage gave the example of a kid arrested this morning, but I'd think it would be obvious that there's more than one teenager out there who's committed violent crimes. Weren't a couple of the people who shot up the jungle 15?

I make no argument about the racism of the justice system, but I wish this movement had a more concrete answer for what happens with the most violent offenders, what happens to the kids currently in the dilapidated jail, how we achieve zero youth incarceration, etc.

@ 24,

You miss my point entirely.

Your focus is entirely on what happens after the crime has occurred. My focus is not on that at all. I am focusing entirely on preventing the crime from happening to begin with. I have called not for unequal sentencing- I am calling upon us all to address the root causes of crime.

If a patient is already drying of cancer, however heroic your efforts might be to save them, you ca at best offer them a severely traduced quality of life and a horrific experience. If the patient is never exposed to the carcinogen to begin with, you can offer them a long, healthy life.

Is it better to clean up the wreckage after the flood has wiped out the city, or to build a good levee system that spares the city from significant damage and saves the lives of its residents?

Similarly, would you rather try the juvenile who has committed murder, thus curtailing the victim's life just so you can live out your discipline and punish fantasy- or prevent the murder from ever happening to begin with, thus sparing both victim and the child?

Clearly it is better to address the causes, and adopt a preventative model.

Incidentally,t e amendment right before the 14th does allow one exemption to slave labor- the incarcerated may still be enslaved according to that very amendment. This is the real reason why we haven adopted preventative models in the US, why we incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than anyone else, why that population is mostly comprised of disempowered minorities who are less able to fight back in court, and why incarceration has become an industry. Its unpaid labor. Slave labor. Prisons run by WA state government avail of this. Many private companies contract out to WA state prisons, and use the labor of those incarcerated there- unpaid labor - to produce cheap goods for sale.

Incarcerate them while they're young, and you get not only slave labor, but child labor too. Upon release, they find it impossible to get jobs with a criminal record. They turn to crime to survive, using the skills they learnt in prison, after mixing with people who stole or sold drugs or whatever. This brings them back into prison as adults, so they can be enslaved again. And again. And again.

@cthulhu. Jesus Christ you are dense. 30 seconds to find juvenile violent crime stats for Washington.

https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-r…

As for the imaginary systemic racism involved... ever heard of sentencing guidelines for violent crimes? They are designed to eliminate factors like race, ethnicity, and class from sentencing by focusing a sentencing range based SOLELY ON THE CRIME AND THE CRIMINAL HISTORY.

http://www.cfc.wa.gov/PublicationSentenc…

You know nothing about the criminal justice system except what you’ve learned by watching law and order. Why don’t you do some research of your own before you demand other people do it for you.

And @wanderingstars... you must be shitposting to suggest putting a killer in with a “loving family”. The only family that would want that is the Manson family.

@11 What? Jesus Christ, your stupid argument makes as much sense as your stupid garble-bargle screen name.

I guess you're volunteering to house teenaged rapists or something? Who knows. That makes about as much sense.

@20 Thank you.

But I guess "something... something... they're going to bogus arrest more kids to fill beds! something..."

If you identify with one of the victims, these kids should be locked up forever.

If you dislike the victims, well, it's important to understand their motivations and give them every shot at rehabilitation.

Glad to see Dan "Afraid to Debate Nikkita Oliver on the Youth Jail" Savage is weighing in by reposting the same stupid shit he did a couple years ago.

@20 thank you for taking the time to share and doing the work you do.

Great article in every respect, but it fails to address a fundamental point: how is money to be made by not incarcerating youth?

Clearly, we simply need a "Land of Toys" to send them to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_To…

Seems as likely a solution as creating a society in which kids do not commit crimes.

Or.... We could get really creative and out of the box and say until you are an adult you're guardians are liable for your behavior. Children would have no liability, and by extension, no rights and instead be entirely their parents responsibility. Then all we have to do is agree on when a child is no longer a child... seems like that's somewhere between 25 and 32 these day?

Sympathy for kids in unfortunate circumstances is important, and we could all use a little more of it.

However.

If you don't think a young rapist should be jailed, I want you to explain your reasoning, not to me, but to the victim who has to sit in class next to her rapist, possibly for years, just because she was raped by a juvenile.

Where's your empathy for that unfortunate kid?

In his book about Attica, Tom Wicker said once the guns were brought in it was only a matter of when, not if, they would be used. We tend to rise – or sink – to the level of the "solutions" we put in play. I think incarceration policy in this country for the past 3-4 decades has shown us that if you put in more beds, the system will find justifications to fill them, regardless of the circumstances around the crimes and criminals or the outcomes we desire. So we need to move thoughtfully there.

As in nearly every social issue, of course the racism is always there despite attempts to neutralize it. It's too baked into general circumstances, bigotry, public opinion, political pandering, etc. So let's quit pretending this problem is not also a race problem.

There must be different solutions that other nations use in response to violent juvenile crime. The problem with sticking to U.S.-only data points is that we've had only one setting in responding to crime since the 80s and so we pretty much always end up doing the same thing repeatedly and just dressing it up differently because we're locked into that one approach. Perhaps some academic experts in juvenile criminal studies could provide some more diverse insights.

When I had to deal with a sociopath it was most difficult to remember that they mimic the actual emotions of "bonded" humans. To meet a 10 year old murderer and see the reality of the disconnect before they perfect the masking, is disturbing at a deep level. Making a sociopath isn't difficult but living with them is a horror. They do nor experience life in any way most of us could recognize. Prey and predator, guess which part you get?

Before I assume that this new jail isn't necessary, why would I believe the current one is going to help anyone I might care about? Sociopaths used to be uncommon, I don't think that is true anymore. I would like to think that young murderers and rapists are just "troubled" and need guidance or something. Which is a bit weird, if thought about. Maybe the ones who made a "mistake" or are trapped in dysfunctional groups would benefit from some redirection.

However, err on the side of caution and watch carefully if you think slamming all the young in one heap is convenient. That mimic of "normal" is dangerous and the only thing a sociopath wants is control of its own power..

@37
"We tend to rise – or sink – to the level of the "solutions" we put in play."

So then by increasing spending on the homeless, addicts and the mentally ill, under the assumption that "if you put in more beds, the system will find justifications to fill them, regardless of the circumstances around the outcomes we desire," the expected outcome will of course be more homeless, more addicts and more mentally ill in out community.

What we need are free range felonious teenagers wondering the streets. They just need love and support.

If they leave the city limits the burbs can shoot them on site.

Glad I settled that for everyone

@37

Racism in the US, of course, is rather different from racism in other parts of the world. I'd guess it's a larger contributing factor in the US than in, say, Germany.

While juvenile violence and detention have been decreasing steadily in the US for several decades, they have been increasing across Europe (pdf) at the same time. So it looks like racism isn't the primary driver of youth violence?

A simple google search turns up lots and lots of academic studies of youth violence worldwide.

Pick a few titles that catch your eye and read the abstracts/introductions, don't wait around for "academic experts in juvenile criminal studies" to show up in the comments section of an alt-weekly and give you their personal interpretations of the literature.

@36 the justice system isn't mean to serve victims, it's meant to serve society. If 2 kids are rehabbed for every unrehabbable kid that gets leniency, you have to call it a win. Refer back to my post @29.

@39 - I think this is a category error. Homeless is homeless; you either have a place to live or you don't. Addiction is a disease; you either are ill or you are not. True mental illness is a disorder; you either can function or you cannot. Offering expanded solutions for these is to ameliorate the dire problem immediately in front of you without exacerbating the problem, in the same way giving a starving person food doesn't led to more hunger. But the way you've turned it around, it's like when conservatives say we can't have universal health care because then sick people would all rush to the doctor for treatment.

Now here's the key difference: Jailable offenses are not always jailable offenses, especially when it comes to juvenile crime. It's not always as clear on its face as those other problems you mentioned; indeed, we have made it a moving target for political and cultural reasons. The past nearly 50 years of the failed war on drugs proves that case. It has been abused to the point where our incarceration rate is higher than any other nation on Earth. Jailing someone has become an easy way to avoid dealing directly and immediately with the problem. Giving a homeless person shelter for the night is the opposite of this. I cannot think of a single public policy program that intentionally sought to increase the ranks of homelessness the way that Nixon-Reagan-Clinton policies pushed incarceration rates.

And did you know that most juveniles who are locked up have not even committed a violent offense? (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie…) Yes, actual violent juvenile crime is a serious and different problem, but there is evidence that executing the underage or stuffing them into simmering cauldrons of violence and terror hasn't been the best answer. All people want to do is to consider whether a better answer is possible. Why are we so often afraid to even think about that?

@40 - That violates the law of the excluded middle. The only solutions available to us are not locking kids away in a draconian fashion or setting them free. At least for the short-term, people are discussing other possibilities. To not see that is to miss the entire point of this discussion.

@41 – I appreciate that you want to cut the middleman expert out of the way, but the PDF you sent me to is 20 years old. The other links you provide don't in any way directly address the incarceration issue and its attendant data, analysis and consequences. That's the entire nut of what we're talking about here. You say a Google search should be an analog for expert research and real analysis. But you or I inadequately mimicking the hard work of actual research can run counter to actually finding fact-based potential solutions. Link to some pertinent, individual facts, sure; but replace a whole field of analytical expertise? And no, I don't expect experts to post their findings here, I expect that once we're done flinging turds at each other in this space we will turn to committed experts to help educate us in a way that's stronger than a simple online search.

@43

That's a hell of a lot of words for "no, I don't want to do any work, I want someone else to do all the working and thinking for me."

The fact that you're not an expert hardly absolves you of the responsibility to seek out answers to your questions.

Where do you think experts come from, if you think only experts are qualified to read and interpret the research? Why are you so resistant to the idea of doing the work you'd need to do to become modestly well-informed yourself?

And are you really so helpless that you can't even modify the search terms that someone else typed into Google for you?

I know words are hard for some people when they reach their limit. But hey, you've got a compelling, cogent argument there: "You used too many works and my brain hurts." Wow, sure zinged me! Oh well, by your logic I'm sure you'll be up for me performing the next critical medical procedure on you or your loved ones after I spend a little time on WebMD or representing you at a tax audit after watching a streaming video on Turbotax or performing mechanical maintenance on your next plane trip after playing War Thunder. Yes, I'm lazy and helpless because I'd like to hear from someone who actually knows something and knows how to use that information instead of taking advice on an online forum from a shoot-from-the-hips loudmouth. Clearly I have no concept of research or hard work or critical thought simply because I have the self-confidence to dare want to listen to an expert who is probably way smarter then me. Tell me, how does it feel to be so far behind the rest of the class? Is there actually a physical pain between your ears or just a dull existential ache somewhere in your gut as the world of smarter people keeps passing you by? The arrogance of your disdain for deeper knowledge and expertise is stunning. The anti-intellectualism of people like you in Drumpf's America is breathtaking. Enjoy your ongoing endarkenment as you wash down another OxyContin with some Red Bull.

@45

OK, you obviously don't want statistically or scientifically sound information about youth violence and incarceration worldwide, you want someone whose personal authority you accept to tell you what to think.

And you quite clearly prefer to use the internet to heave overcooked insults at people who offer suggestions you're uncomfortable with, rather than use it to learn more about the world you live in.

Lovely chat we've had, let's each carry on enjoying our lives in our own unique ways.

I think it makes sense to build a facility with lots of support for kids that need it. At the same time, we do need to lock up a handful of violent youths. What would make the most sense then, it to design the building so that the beds can be converted to other uses, as society improves.

Actually, that is exactly what we are building, as @15 said. Either folks are demanding something that is simply unrealistic, or completely misunderstand the nature of this project.

We don't need to incarcerate ANYONE - young or old - in the way we presently do. And we very much SHOULDN'T if our goal is actually rehabilitation. I'm not sure if no incarceration at all is the best model for a society (though I have read some theoretical models for handling antisocial behavior in anarchist societies - there's not much empirical evidence for how they function, mostly inference), but we do have alternatives in a lot of cases, and even when there aren't alternatives to incarceration, there are alternatives for HOW we incarcerate people. Norway, for example, has a model that has much better outcomes for rehabilitation and eventual reintegration of people into wider society.

@38: A lack of empathy doesn't necessarily imply antisocial behavior, and the presence of empathy doesn't imply prosocial behavior. Empathy operates on principles of recognition and similarity, and it tends to make one more sympathetic to people whom are physically near oneself and people whom one recognizes as more similar to oneself (look the same, shared culture, etc.). There are perfectly good reasons to treat other people well that have nothing to do with mirroring their perceived emotional states and everything to do with rational self interest, which is why most people of limited or no empathy don't wind up as murderers. It's entirely possible to socialize sociopaths/psychopaths to engage in pro-social behavior - capitalism was originally an attempt to do so, by incentivizing pro-social economic activity with a limited ability to personally profit (though it was eventually twisted to support profit-seeking as an end in itself thanks to a lack of regulation on the operation of corporations themselves and the capitalist market generally) - so incarceration may not be the best plan even for dealing with the psychopath problem.