No one mentioned ratio, this is about 'injustice/abuse of tech' not volume. For comparison, even with the BS behavior in OP, Turkey is about 285/100,000 incarceration rate. The US of A is at 666/110,000, over double.

what are you saying? USA is worst?

A government can imprison people for horrible reasons, but still not have the worst radio.

Another part that effects the current prison population is the length of sentences. One country might imprison less people but for much longer so the total population at one time might be very high.

I think it's a sign of horrible reasons. Dig into specifics and the US does unjustly keep people in prison on a regular basis.

We have huge issues from generations of politics over substance. It's only obvious that things are getting worse when you look at statistics because nobody has unbiased understanding of the entire system.

if you imprison 1 person for no reason at all, that would be pretty horrible... but if you imprison thousands for barely nothing, that is ok?

America has a high ratio.

To call it 'worst' is a value judgment and not an objective statement, any more than saying the abortion or divorce rate is better or worse.

Failed attempt at a ‘technical’ correction.

I think it’s reasonable to say that the highest incarceration rate is the worst rate, regardless of the reasons. Whether it’s due to an excessively harsh system, high rates of damaging criminality, whatever it is, they’re all bad whatever they are. Surely the ideal number of wrongly convicted people, and the ideal number of legitimately convicted people, and the ideal number of criminals that have escaped justice are all as low as possible?

Similarly for abortion and divorce. Even people who believe abortion should be an option would prefer there to be no need for it. Every one of them is a tragedy no matter which side of the debate you’re on. Same for Divorce.

I don't think I agree, and I think your examples do not support your point.

In the case of the number of legitimately convicted people, you seem to think zero is the ideal. In a sense, I think we can probably all agree. But what we really want is the number of people committing crimes to be zero. If it is not zero, then surely the ideal number of people legitimately convicted is equal to the number of people who have committed crimes. If it is not, then we are saying we want people who have committed crimes to walk free. So in this sense, "worst" is, in fact, a judgment.

But "everyone" agreeing doesn't even mean something isn't a judgment. There is no objective "worst". And in the case of divorce, you're wrong. Divorce has been hugely beneficial for women's equality, and my own personal divorce was definitely not a tragedy.

>To call it 'worst' is a value judgment and not an objective statement

Why does that matter here?

The very laws which a large % of them broke (drug laws) are not based on objective statements.

>The very laws which a large % of them broke (drug laws)

Common misconception, but that's not actually the case - best numbers show about 15% of prisoners are in with drug charges.

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/releasing-drug-offender...

>best numbers show about 15% of prisoners are in with drug charges.

That's incorrect. The source says ~16% had, as their most serious offence, a drug charge.

So in reality more than 16% are serving time for drug crimes. It seems a bit disingenuous that the statistic is posed like that, especially when considering the cyclical nature of incarceration,"3 strikes" laws, and the cascading violence caused by drug laws.