The point of punishment is enforce accountability and consequences for one’s actions. That should be the primary aim of our criminal justice system. Personally, I believe the biggest deterent against crime, is the potential for punishment.
I’d rather pay for more jails, than pay to rehabilitate criminals.
The problem of breeding future criminals w/o rehabilitating them gets mitigated with harsher and longer punishments. That would be how I would address the issue of ‘releasing future criminals’.
I need a cite that if we took away all forms of punishment (no prisons or police or courts) then we would have an increase in crime? This is silly. No reasonable person would disagree with this, so I’m not going to bother elaborating on it further.
How will we force inmates to do it? How do we make them be sorry and examine thier own actions?
It’s precisely this soft on crime, sympathy for criminals and forgiving attitude that results in more crimes being committed. Spending taxpayer dollars, time and resources on making sure the criminals aren’t “angry” at being imprisoned is simply foolish.
No one is suggesting cruel or unusual punishment. It’s the other way around. I would happily support being warm and fuzzy towards the prisoners and being mindful of their feelings and such if there were any evidence that it would reduce crime, but there isn’t.
Who said we’d take away police or courts? I was talking about eliminating punishment as far as possible and replacing it with rehabilitating, or at the very least replacing incarceration with a form of punishment that forces rehabilitation, such as electronic tracking devices (don’t know the common English term, sorry).
Although it refers more specifically to the death penalty than to harsh punishments in general, I still think this post of mhendo’s is relevant and excellent.
I think this mischaracterises the Disagree position. In fact, I believe it is those who ticked Agree who are being emotional in this issue, while the Disagreers are looking upon criminals not with “sympathy” or “forgiveness” but with the dispassionate, scientific view of one looking at a broken machine. I consider a criminal to be a human being who, for whatever reason, outputs decisions which the rest of us simply don’t even entertain under our operant conditioning. On the other hand, I perceive those who focus solely on punishment to desire retribution to be visited on the criminal, to pornographise vengeance. In what way is seeking to change the operant conditioning of a machine “coddling” or “sympathy”?
As for the money, well, incarceration is itself enormously expensive. I would have thought that any positive statistic for a rehabilitative program would be worth it if the offender did not return to the vast money pit of prison.
I don’t know…I said as far as I know. This is what I recall hearing, on this board and in other places. I could be wrong. Certainly a large portion of prisoners are in for drug posession, enough for us to rethink our drug laws.
Drugs should be made legal. The resources that this frees up in the courts, police and prisons should be used to more effectively deal with violent criminals. But, that’s another debate.
My husband works in corrections, so I may have a better perspective on this than people who are outside the criminal justice system. I can see where the theory meets the real world. While I have liberal dreams, they’re often crushed by hard, cold reality.
Rehabilitation is optional. The offender must want to change. No program, no matter how finely tuned or carefully orchestrated can make an offender change his ways.
The system isn’t really set up for real rehabilitation. Funds for rehabilitation programs are limited, and staff is small. The real way to make rehabilitation work is to have intensive one-on-one therapy with each individual inmate, but the costs would be astromomical, and taxpayers would balk. Instead, we have classroom-type treatment programs with staff who are harried, overworked and underpaid-- not really trained as therapists, merely following along in their “teacher’s guide.”
What many inmates need is a sort of total social re-programming. Many sincerely have no concept of right-and-wrong. They honestly have no idea why their actions were bad and why they should be punished. They have never been taught impulse control, nor empathy. These concepts are not innate-- they must be taught, and the best time to do so is in early childhood. Lacking this training, the offender is truly confused when faced with societal mores and rules. They understand that there is a rule against this or that, but they don’t understand why. What prison is for some of them is an introduction to these concepts. If done properly, this could be life-changing, but most of the time, it’s not, simply because of lack of time, funds and personell to explain and teach.
Rehabilitation is further limited by the fact that society really doesn’t want these offenders back. An inmate can recieve all kinds of vocational training and education in the prison, but once he’s released, finding a good-paying job is difficult at best. Employers will hire a less-qualified applicant before they’ll hire an ex-con. Ex-offenders who want to support their families are often either forced into low-paying work, or go back to better-paying crime. For a person whose concepts of social ethics are shaky at best, backbreaking, low-wage work isn’t very attractive when compared with relatively easy criminal actions which may pay in a day more than they could earn in an honest work week.