[Commenting under "A good question about prison nation ... dodged"]

Maybe I can get some traction here with my ideas:

I produced the following under the basic theory that any convict chosen for rehabilitation deserves enormous resources dedicated toward that end, while those not so chosen deserve nothing more from society..

The basic plan goes as follows:

1) Upon felony conviction, of whatever level ranging from first degree murder to passing bad checks a new quasi-jury pool is chosen. These panel members, unlike the guilt jury, come from localities where the crime did not occur. Also unlike the guilt jury they are not actually convened into a sitting panel.
The size of the pool is inversely proportional to the severity of the crimes of conviction, though never falling below a minimum threshold.

2) Each member of this new pool is approached in turn, one at a time. They are not told their order within the pool. The pool member is presented facts about the convict, though some material is held back (race and name as race proxy being two that come immediately to my mind). A defense representative will be part of this process to ensure that no improper information is conveyed. If any such information is conveyed then the results of that pool member are disqualified if adverse to the convict.

3) The pool member is asked whether they wish to rehabilitate the convict. If the answer is "yes" then the convict is placed in the pool member's home in some form of legal guardianship and is once more considered to be a juvinile for legal purposes. A stipend calculated to make the convict's presense and rehabilitation financally neutral shall be paid in order to negate at least most cost-benefit analysis from the pool member's mind.

4) If all pool members say "no" the convict is placed in prison where they are given a chance for a normal set of appeals. When those appeals are exhausted the convict is executed, not for the crime of conviction, but for being considered unfit for living within society.

5) Upon completion of the term of legal guardianship, the the convict is returned to full civil status with no restrictions whatsoever on their liberty.
The only time the prior conviction can be discovered through legal means is during a subsequent penalty determination.

This system is intended for use only in felony cases, misdemeanors should be reduced strictly to incarceration/fine with no other effects outliving whatever term of probation is also given. Also no actual juvinile is to be placed in this system, though many juvinile cases make the natural parents appear as a significant issue.

I realize the distance requirements of step 1 would be far easier to acheive in the federal system and large states like California and Texas than smaller states. I believe this could be overcome by setting up some form of convict exchange. I include this step for the purpose of removing the convict from
an familiar environment, and hopefully make it at least somewhat more difficult to establish contact with whatever criminal element exists in the new location.

This system would also reduce the value of plea bargaining, the remaining options being immunity or a negotiated pool size larger than contemplated for the criminal category.

I also realize that current precident would not allow the above system to be implemented and that amendment(s) would be required to effectuate that change.