NationStates Jolt Archive

This is quite a controversial topic, and I can't make up any good kind of approach to this. Do we rehabilitate or punish, and to what point is each useful? So I wondered if anyone on NS has a position they might be willing to share? Go on, don't be shy :) .

rehabilitation

The best way to address criminals?

I find 'Dear Convicted Fellon...' to be a good start...

...sorry ;)

Rehabilitation. We need as many member of society to be useful and needed as possible.

Rehabilitation. We need as many member of society to be useful and needed as possible.

I quite agree with that view, but there are murderers that get out and do it again, right... rehabilitation can't cure all, can it? Maybe a 3-strikes your out system?

Seriously, neither approach seems to work that well. Look at that rate of recidivism in the US. Depending on the state and the era various approaches have been tried.

Maybe we just call it quits, be honest about our society and call it punishment for the crime. Revenge. I don't have any problem with honesty.

If the smarter ones want to avoid future punishment by modifying their behavior, then that's a fringe benefit.

There are those who rehabilitation has no affect on.The only way to deal with them so they will no longer victimise others is life in prison

This is quite a controversial topic, and I can't make up any good kind of approach to this. Do we rehabilitate or punish, and to what point is each useful? So I wondered if anyone on NS has a position they might be willing to share? Go on, don't be shy :) .
You write their name
Address
City, state, zip code

Rehabilitation, but only one chance to reform, then life imprisonment.

Rehabilitation, but only one chance to reform, then life imprisonment.

Ya, that seems real fair to the criminals, but what about the second victim?

punishment for the crime. if a person shows sincere change than they should be put on to a strike system. if they mess up again than its back on the punishment without another chance.

How about a .45 right behind the left ear. Nice and clean.

Punishment, they can rehabilitate themselves in jail while they carry out their term if they want to and we can provide them the means in which to do so to a limited degree. After all they're still there for punishment.

The way I see it, the main purpose of jails and the like are to hold it over peoples' heads that they will go to jail if they break the law, so they don't do it in the first place. So if some one does break the law they need to be punished, so other people know that they'd go to jail too.

The way I see it, the main purpose of jails and the like are to hold it over peoples' heads that they will go to jail if they break the law, so they don't do it in the first place. So if some one does break the law they need to be punished, so other people know that they'd go to jail too.

Wow, that's so inaffective though. I think if you wanted the threat to be real, the .45 would be more effective.

Try this on.. makes sense to me:

http://www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/Corrections/fastfact/ff4_e.asp

I quite agree with that view, but there are murderers that get out and do it again, right... rehabilitation can't cure all, can it? Maybe a 3-strikes your out system?

No, that sort of system is unfortunately too prone to abuse to be practicable on a wide scale. It is designed to be among the front-lines of legal devices employed by a criminal justice system already skewed toward punitivity.

It depends on what types of criminals you're referring to. If you're talking about a crackhead or something, rehabilitation might be a possibility, and work effectively. If you're talking about a convicted first degree murderer or a violent rapist or something of the sort, fuck them. I think punishments on shit like that should be harsher. If premeditated murder called for your balls being sawed off half a millimeter per day, after which you would be burned alive, you might fuckin' think twice about killing somebody. Cruel and unusual punishment does not exist when dealing with a cold-blooded killer.

Besides, why does any murderer, if they killed somebody in an act other than self-defense or defense of another, deserve rehabilitation? Why do they get a second chance, when their victim does not?

"If you come to Texas and you kill somebody, we will kill you back. That's our policy... We're trying to send a message to people, and that message is: go somewhere else and kill people. Go to California, they don't give a shit." -Ron White

I guess we could do what China used to do... just kidding. ;)

Wow, that's so inaffective though. I think if you wanted the threat to be real, the .45 would be more effective.

Try this on.. makes sense to me:

http://www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/Corrections/fastfact/ff4_e.asp

IMHO, the only reason longer sentences are ineffective is because we've gotten to the point where prison is like club med. If we just threw the prisoners into a hole in the desert and brought them a fish every three days, they would think before commiting another crime.

A mixture of punishment and rehabilitation with different focuses depending on the situation but rehabilitation preferred.

punishment for the crime. if a person shows sincere change than they should be put on to a strike system. if they mess up again than its back on the punishment without another chance.

Is what I'm saying. You probably put it better, though. :)

hmm dear sir or madam.. GO BACK TO JAIL :D

Well from what I'm gathering, we should either rehabilitate murderers, or shoot them, because we're wasting time, money, and effort just throwing them in jail.

Rehabilitate the ones who can be rehabilitated. Permanently incarcerate the ones who can't be rehabilitated.

punishment for the crime. if a person shows sincere change than they should be put on to a strike system. if they mess up again than its back on the punishment without another chance.

Hmmm, so a guy gets mad at his girlfriend one night and bashes her skull in with a rock. He goes to prison for a few years, and the warden or his psychiatrist or whoever decides that he's ready for real life. Thanks to this wonderful system, he gets mad again some other night and bashes another innocent person's skull in. Good job; was his freedom and your conscience worth it?

punishment for the crime. if a person shows sincere change than they should be put on to a strike system. if they mess up again than its back on the punishment without another chance.

Those sociopaths in prison are quite good at lying. Don't you know most people in prison are innocent?

Rehabilitate the ones who can be rehabilitated. Permanently incarcerate the ones who can't be rehabilitated.

Sounds good. But how the heck do we differ between the ones that can be and the ones that can't. Like Aldranin said, we can't afford these second chance situations that turn out just like the first chance.

There was the death penalty, but the big beef with those was the wrongly convicted persecutions.

Hmmm, so a guy gets mad at his girlfriend one night and bashes her skull in with a rock. He goes to prison for a few years, and the warden or his psychiatrist or whoever decides that he's ready for real life. Thanks to this wonderful system, he gets mad again some other night and bashes another innocent person's skull in. Good job; was his freedom and your conscience worth it?

I can sit and make up scenarios that suit my viewpoint as easily as you can, so hush now, the grown ups are talking.

Sounds good. But how the heck do we differ between the ones that can be and the ones that can't. Like Aldranin said, we can't afford these second chance situations that turn out just like the first chance.

There was the death penalty, but the big beef with those was the wrongly convicted persecutions.

Yeah, that was a problem, but there are two things - the scientific way of looking at it, and the evil Republican way of looking at it.

Scientific: With the massive breakthroughs in forensics that we have had over the last ten years, the possibility of a wrongly convicted person receiving the death penalty is all but impossible. Besides, let's say a thousand people receive the death penalty instead of a life sentence, one of which is innocent. That sucks. Now, let's say those 1000 get the life sentence, instead. Of those, let's say ten eventually get out on good behavior. Now that's ten murderers, out of which at least one will probably want to kill again anyway, either to get back at society, or because they're psychotic. So at least one innocent person is dead, anyway.

Evil Republican: If someone is getting falsely accused of murder, and is receiving the death penalty for it, chances are that they did ten other things they should have been caught for.

A balance of both. You need punishment as an inciting to not commit crime and rehabilitation because one day they will come out and you don't want them to fall in the crime again.

or maybe...

slavery?

I can sit and make up scenarios that suit my viewpoint as easily as you can, so hush now, the grown ups are talking.

Are you kidding? It's not like that situation is very unlikely. Unstable people can become unstable again quite easily, even if they formerly seemed fine. Family members and friends of many rage killers will tell you that it was a huge surprise when Jimbo went mad and killed his three buddies, because rage killers are the type of people that bottle shit up and don't show that they might be dangerous. Don't be an idiot, the scenario I wrote is very likely.

slavery?

Shh, Bill. Don't give the Americans any ideas.

You write their name
Address
City, state, zip code

No no, how to address the criminal, which means you need a lot of paper to wrap em and some nice sticky labels and you have to know where you sending them...

Yeah, that was a problem, but there are two things - the scientific way of looking at it, and the evil Republican way of looking at it.

Scientific: With the massive breakthroughs in forensics that we have had over the last ten years, the possibility of a wrongly convicted person receiving the death penalty is all but impossible. Besides, let's say a thousand people receive the death penalty instead of a life sentence, one of which is innocent. That sucks. Now, let's say those 1000 get the life sentence, instead. Of those, let's say ten eventually get out on good behavior. Now that's ten murderers, out of which at least one will probably want to kill again anyway, either to get back at society, or because they're psychotic. So at least one innocent person is dead, anyway.

Evil Republican: If someone is getting falsely accused of murder, and is receiving the death penalty for it, chances are that they did ten other things they should have been caught for.

Yes, you're right. But, heh, the most humane way to kill somebody is...

the most humane way to kill somebody is...
Death by snoo snoo of course

Death by snoo snoo of course

Oh, of course! Where was my head!

Yes, you're right. But, heh, the most humane way to kill somebody is...

Bah, who needs humanity, anyway?

I guess we could turn them into quadriplegics and let Michael Jackson molest them all day long...

I guess we could turn them into quadriplegics and let Michael Jackson molest them all day long...

I resent that comment... speaking of the legal system you're so confident about, one in a thousand this one was wrong?

Anyway, that question could probably really tear a lot of people lol. Even if they choose a gun, which gun? In what location? Almost seems execution style.

I don't know, were electric chairs efficient? I wouldn't know..

Yes, you're right. But, heh, the most humane way to kill somebody is...
Feed them to hungry cannibals.

Or Death by Gallagher

I can't remember which.
:(

Hmmm, so a guy gets mad at his girlfriend one night and bashes her skull in with a rock. He goes to prison for a few years, and the warden or his psychiatrist or whoever decides that he's ready for real life. Thanks to this wonderful system, he gets mad again some other night and bashes another innocent person's skull in. Good job; was his freedom and your conscience worth it?

You miss out the part where the psychiatrist actually does something before releasing him.

Maybe a 3-strikes your out system?
The 3-strikes system is stupid as hell. A lot of people do minor shit like destruction of property, smoke a joint and such and get life if caught three times, when the total sum of prison time might add up to maybe eight month, while a rapist gets two years and then probation?

The best way to address violent criminals is at the time they are committing the crime. If more people Resisted violent crime, more criminals would find that non-violent crime is safer.

But then, most "non-violent-crime" is a crock created by politics & moralists to control the lives of others.

If it ain't Theft or Violence, it ain't a crime.

Are you kidding? It's not like that situation is very unlikely. Unstable people can become unstable again quite easily, even if they formerly seemed fine. Family members and friends of many rage killers will tell you that it was a huge surprise when Jimbo went mad and killed his three buddies, because rage killers are the type of people that bottle shit up and don't show that they might be dangerous. Don't be an idiot, the scenario I wrote is very likely.

Right, and your qualification to comment on the occurence of re-offending by spontaneous killers is .........

Thought so.

The best way to address criminals?

I find 'Dear Convicted Fellon...' to be a good start...

...sorry ;)

Well I was going to say (and it appears I still am) that armed blue collar criminals are to be addressed as 'sir.' In fact, it is a good idea to address all weapons as 'sir.'

White collar criminals may safely be addressed as 'asshole.'