> The entire point of prison is to remove them from society.

That is the immediate effect, for sure. But that isn't the issue.

Unless someone is convicted for life without parole, or a death penalty, then they likely will be released into the general population at some point.

Do you want them to have skills that might allow them to support themselves, or do you think a near term investment in education might be cheaper for society and more humane than releasing them with a situation where they have fewer opportunities to make a living?

Like it or not, most inmates will be released. Patterns of recidivism are well established. If they reoffend, we will spend more resources on those prisoners. (To say nothing of the costs on society when they do reoffend) It seem reasonable to not want to spend money on someone who has already messed up, but the practical reality is there's a real cost to not making those investments.

Put a different way, this is about those who haven't committed crimes: those affected by future crime, and those who haven't yet committed crime but statistically are likely to (think children of the chronically incarcerated)

The point of prisons is to remove them from society until they can be sociable again. But I see your point, we should be putting more spending towards those who have never been convicted than we are now.