Before crying straw man (by the way, that's a great way to stifle the discussion), remember that you first said: "Prison exists to ensure ...". There is quite a difference in meaning between that and what you are talking about here - my response was hardly a strawman if you interpret "Prison exists ..." in a certain way.
Yeah, and this has always been the primary goal of Prison. Prisons were never made to be places to reeducate people. It was always, at the beginning, seen as both a practical "exile" form society and a form of punishment. And I maintain that your reply was indeed a strawman, because it was not at all answering to the point I raised, no matter how you look at it, there was no implication that Prison was fair in any way in my comment.
No matter how you look at it. When I first read your sentence, I unintentionally read what you said differently than what you intended. If ambiguity in language allows for many interpretations of a statement, responding to one instead of the other is not a strawman.
Again, regardless, the purpose of my question was not about what prison was originally intended to be but instead what it's purpose should be.