Of course people are irresponsible. The question is why some people abrogate their responsibilities and become criminals while others don’t (and indeed why there are massive differences in how many people abrogate responsibility in different countries, or different regions, or even different neighbourhoods).
Yes, the criminals themselves are responsible for their crimes. But does punishment prevent future crimes more effectively than rehabilitation? If not, how do we improve those rehabilitative prospects? As Priceguy asks, what is the point of punishment if it is not to rehabilitate by teaching them not to be caught next time?
Really? Are any of the normal, raised-in-happy-families people you know rapists? Oh and I didn’t say they didn’t know waht they did was wrong. I did say it would be a good thing if they found out why they did what they did and were able to prevent it happening again.
Don’t you want that too? Most rapists do not get life sentences. I want to think that they have been helped while inside not just locked up to stew and hate us all more.
Imprisonment is the ultimate manifestation of punishment that started when you were a kid and you were bad and your mom sent you to your room. If you didn’t learn then you got sent back. But there was always a way out, some magic words or some expected behavior that would exonerate you. The question then became “did you learn anything from it?”.
Prison is just an adult version of that, except they don’t just get out for eating their peas. They don’t get out because they didn’t learn a damn thing when their parents did it to them, they learned that there was some expected behavior that would free them. That’s what rehab is for them, giving them what they want just so they can get out.
I’m not convinced of anyone’s honesty in a prison. They’re all liars, every single one of them (with the exception of the ones that immediately confess, and how many of them are there?), so why should I take their word for it that they’re “rehabilitated”? For that matter, why should I believe some pshrink who says it is so, some guy who comes up with imperfect results in what is already an inexact science?
Forget it. They are there to be punished, not coddled. Their mothers did that, and see where that got them?
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
I’m not convinced of anyone’s honesty in a prison. They’re all liars, every single one of them (with the exception of the ones that immediately confess, and how many of them are there?), so why should I take their word for it that they’re “rehabilitated”?
Who says you should? We’re just saying that rehabilitation is more important than punishment.
Cough. Are you saying that an improportionally large amount of prisoners were coddled when they were young? That flies in the face of every bit of evidence I’ve ever seen.
And I’d still like to know what you’re trying to achieve with punishment. What’s the point?
Who says you should? We’re just saying that rehabilitation is more important than punishment.
Cough. Are you saying that an improportionally large amount of prisoners were coddled when they were young? That flies in the face of every bit of evidence I’ve ever seen.
And I’d still like to know what you’re trying to achieve with punishment. What’s the point?
Perhaps you need to think outside the box. Ever wonder why you are there married and raising a son while John Doe is inside after raping/stealing/bashing?
Maybe his mum didn’t teach him right from wrong.
Like you said when your mum sent you to your room she wanted you to learn that what you had done was wrong and why it was wrong and what you should have done instead.
She didn’t send you to your room for a week. She didn’t send you without a rant (loving talk about what you had done wrong). She didn’t let you come oput without a gentle reminder of your crime and why you shouldn’t do it again. She probably told you what you should do next time you felt like doing that crime again (ohhh look you got counselling! from your mother!).
She didn’t just punish you, she rehabilated you. You should thank her. Many people just got punishment from their mums, not rehab. Many of them are in prison now.
You’re punishing them to punish them to punish them to punish them, and what you’re trying to achieve is punishment? There is nothing else to it, no purpose, no point, no meaning, just punishment? You eat to survive, you drive to get somewhere, but you punish just to punish?
I’m going to ask you a question. Answer or not. You’ve repeatedly had problems driving, yes? Recently you trashed your car and luckily didn’t damage anyone or every other property. You are a repeatly problematic and dangerous driver.
However, unless you’re mental, you can be trained to pay attention when you drive. My question is, should you be rehabilitated or should you be punished? That state has it’s best chance to turn you around, right now. In six months or six years, you’ll forget and next time your luck may run out, worst someone else’s luck.
It benefits the State to have you be a competent driver.
Now let’s say, this time your car accident breaks Holmes’ Law, which means jail time. However we have a progressive Judge. He gives you the option of a specialized driving course, which upon completion, you would be allowed community service, but not prision time. He would rather has a rehabilitated Airman driving, than a still dangerous Airman leaving prison in six months with even worst driving skills.
I have been punished according to the laws of the state of Pennsylvania. I got a helluva fine, which in my financial situation is a worse punishment than jail.
If that’s what the punishment is, so be it. Nobody made me have an accident. Hell, they were originally going to charge me with Criminal Mischief, so I was looking prison right in the face. Was I concerned? Hell yes I was. But you know what? I did it, I am responsible for it, and ultimately I pay the price for it. If that doesn’t teach me, then I guess I go back. And so forth. If you are in jail and you seriously ask “what did I do wrong?”, you should never be let out.
Right, so you’re now a better driver? You paid your fine and are most likely no better a driver than you were before the accident. You were punished, but now because the state didn’t rehabilitate you, you are still a danger on the road.
So what good was your punishment? Sure it made an short-term inconvenience for your family, but wouldn’t your neighbours be better if the state rehabilitated your driving habits BEFORE they allowed to pay your fine and continue to have the ability to drive?
XT disagrees. I think that they should be roughly equal…i.e. in criminal justice the punishment (i.e. the debt owed to society by the law breaker) should be equal, at least initially, with the attempt by society to rehabilitate (if possible) the law breaker and re-integrate him/her back into society as a productive member.
However, after the initial crime, a lawbreaker repeating his/her lawbreaking ways, the emphasis should shift more towards punishment than towards rehabilitation with each successive lawbreaking episode…until eventually society gives up on rehabilitation and basically removes the threat to society by leaving the law breaker incarsorated indefinitely…for the over all good of society. It is unfortunately true that some people can not be rehabilitated back into society, and should be perminently removed for the over all good of society. Every effort should be made to TRY and rehabilitate/re-integrate people…but sometimes its just not possible.
No. Punishment is very important. The reason that many people do not commit crimes is because they know if they do they will be punished. If you take away punishment, then we get lots more crime.
So, it’s now the responsibility of me and my tax dollars to provide job training for thieves? Prisons exist to punish criminals and remove them from society to protect the rest of us. Some training programs being available to the prisoners is OK with me, but that is NOT the purpose of prison.
Every prisoner has the opportunity to review his past actions. Every boring day that they rot in prison they have that opportunity, do they not?
I don’t care a damn if the cons are “angry”. It should not be a concern of the prison system to make them feel all fuzzy and happy inside. They are being punished. The experience of prison should be something that they do not want to repeat.
I don’t want the rapist to get out of prison. Ever.
Huh? Who cares if they realize anything? They are in for life. I simply do not care if they get to the place where they are remorseful. Just lock them away so that they are no longer a danger to anyone else.
No, but one would think you’d prefer productive citizens to thieves.
If they don’t do it, what good is it?
Even if it means they commit more crimes?
Debaser and Airman, you seem to think that we hold our views because we feel sorry for the criminals. That’s way beside the point. I at least would happily support crucifixions on the courthouse lawn if there were any evidence that it would reduce crime, but there isn’t.
Paladud, something like +6, -2, clicks “Strongly Agree.”
When you consider rehabilitation, there can be two forms. One involves extensive counseling and training. These are rather limited resources. Even if one believes that it is the government’s proper role to distribute the resources (and I certainly do not), why should the criminals be entitled to such before law-abiding citizens in need of the same?
The other form is a more intensive psychological reformation; A Clockwork Orange comes to mind. I feel that this is a greater violation of an individual’s rights than incarceration, execution, or even prolonged torture, despite any rehabilitative results, and should not ever be considered an option.
I accept some forms of voluntary rehabilitation such as library access for most criminals. Beyond that, the focus should be on punishment.
Oh, I’m sure it would have the desired effect, but it may be a tad difficult to conduct a proper study within the current framework of law
