NationStates Jolt Archive

There's been considerable mention of rehabilitation of criminals, of late, and I don't really understand what that might entail. I also don't understand what incentive not to commit crimes prospective criminals might have without the deterrent force of punishment.

So, I'm hoping some rehabilitation advocates will help me out and explain how rehabilitation is supposed to work.

Seconded. I'd also like to know what people mean by this, in exact terms.

...in exact terms.

I'd prefer precise terms, but that's just me.

I'd prefer precise terms, but that's just me.
Semantics. ;)

The poll is lacking a "mix of both" option.

The poll is lacking a "mix of both" option.
He can still add it I believe. I'd go for punishment for certain harsher crimes and rehabilitation, where it is possible.

He can still add it I believe.

You believe so erroneously, IIRC.

I'd go for punishment for certain harsher crimes and rehabilitation, where it is possible.

I'd go for both in most cases.

You believe so erroneously, IIRC.
Meh, it's been a while since I've made a poll thread.

I'd go for both in most cases.
Ideally, yes. In some cases pure rehabilitation would be mandated, in others punishment on its own. Where feasible, a combination could be achieved.

I don't really see the need for rehabilitation, because it shouldn't work on rational people anyway. The only relevant rehabilitation would be teaching people what the laws are so they'll know what punishments they might face.

But that should have happened in advance, anyway. I think all people have a responsibility to know the laws that govern them.

Heavy on punishment, some rehab, with a double warning of "We'll beat you twice as hard if you come back!"

I don't really see the need for rehabilitation, because it shouldn't work on rational people anyway. The only relevant rehabilitation would be teaching people what the laws are so they'll know what punishments they might face.

But that should have happened in advance, anyway. I think all people have a responsibility to know the laws that govern them.
That indeed should be the case. However, some people suffer from psychopathic ilnesses and can be reformed. I believe that this is the minority though, and thus for most punishment is indeed mandated. As you said, any rational individual should bear the consequences of their actions in mind at all times.

That indeed should be the case. However, some people suffer from psychopathic ilnesses and can be reformed. I believe that this is the minority though, and thus for most punishment is indeed mandated. As you said, any rational individual should bear the consequences of their actions in mind at all times.

I've done a fair amount of reading on psychopathy, and I've seen no evidence that it's treatable. Or that it's an illness. It's really just a different way of looking at things, not unlike autism.

I've done a fair amount of reading on psychopathy, and I've seen no evidence that it's treatable. Or that it's an illness. It's really just a different way of looking at things, not unlike autism.
I will admit I haven't done much reading on the matter. Which is why I remain ambivalent for the time being. Currently I am inclined to your point of view though, that most psychopathic diseases cannot be cured. Hopefully reading on the matter will clarify matters.

I think we're being too soft. How about we get rid of that silly rule about cruel and unusual punishment, and make the rapists get their bits and peices cut off, the murderers get murdered, and the theives get stolen? Or just make them all slaves to the people they hurt, or the families. I'd go for that.

Rehabilitation basically means that, if somebody is committing crimes, there is obviously something wrong with the criminal and we should try to fix it rather than punish the person.

Of course, what we call punishment is actually the simple application of aversives, From an operant conditioning perspective, "Pleasures meant as rewards but that do not strengthen a behavior are indulgences, not reinforcement; aversives meant as a behavior weakener but which do not weaken a behavior are abuse, not punishment." (ref: "An Animal Trainer's Introduction to Operant and Classical Conditioning (http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/index.htm#Consequences)")

Conditioning is one way to deal with expressed behaviour, but I doubt it's the best one in most criminal cases. The punitive legal systems are almost always not even effective as conditioning; their slowness and loopholes lead to the belief that it's only wrong if one is caught. (There are operant conditioned ways to teach self-control, but with somebody who is already a deliberate offender, the process would probably need to be all-encompassing enough to count as brainwashing, and arguably a human rights violation.)

Aversives are about making people feel bad and hoping that they will avoid re-offending because they don't want to be made to feel bad again. In many cases, this does not work. Rehabilitation is about meeting the needs that crime met otherwise. In many cases, these needs are not actually met before the end of the period during which the system is allowed to work on the person.

I would like to see a move towards a more psychiatric view of crime. While ordinary people may have the right to refuse treatment, criminals should not. The fact that they committed a crime indicates that they are not competent to make good decisions and that the results of these decisions can hurt others. There are certain psychiatric conditions with which medication can assist. There are also therapeutic methods, including the application of classical and operant conditioning, that can change thought and behaviour patterns. (Personally, I feel that the argument of 'brainwashing' is less than compelling; if the brain is soiled enough to commit murder, perhaps it really does need to be washed? Should we be treated as we want to be treated, or as we would want to be treated if we understood more? One may not want to be subject to a food-contingent-on-behaviour plan, but one's better-self might prefer that pain to having to do bad things because of learned, maladaptive behaviour patterns.)

I would personally oppose fixed length sentences. If a graffiti artist is particularly resistant to treatment, that person should continue in treatment until that person is better. (Graffiti might be an issue with impulse control, or with understanding the concept of other people's property, or with a compulsive opposition to authority. All of these would need to be treated differently.) If a murderer can be treated with drugs and less than ten years of therapy, what benefit in keeping that person confined for fifty or a hundred years? Why not have him or her out working ad paying taxes?

Do you think that being treated psychiatrically is too nice for criminals? I have never been in a standard justice system, but I have been in a mental ward; I can assure you that despite the fact that as an inmate I had not done anything to harm others, the simple facts of not being able to leave and knowing that if one cannot control one's behaviour, it will be controlled for one . . . are not nice. Perhaps you fear that symptoms leading to crime would not appear in a psychiatric treatment environment? I would say, and conversations with other inmates showed that they concurred, that the environment provided would seem highly likely to exacerbate symptoms rather than hide them; going away somewhere private is NOT an option; one person attempted to lock herself in the bathroom in order to gain privacy and was physically removed from it and restrained to a bed. Even facilities intended for a non-criminal population, then, are NOT nice places to be, no matter how many sing-alongs or recreational activities they have.

There's been considerable mention of rehabilitation of criminals, of late, and I don't really understand what that might entail. I also don't understand what incentive not to commit crimes prospective criminals might have without the deterrent force of punishment.

So, I'm hoping some rehabilitation advocates will help me out and explain how rehabilitation is supposed to work.
Good question. I'm not a rehabilitation advocate though, so I'm afraid I can't help you.

*snip*
Interesting analysis indeed. This all is contingent upon the fact that rehabilitation is indeed effective, of course.

In any case, I am all for social conditioning during a person's education so as to encourage them to be good citizens and prevent crime - so long as, that is, it doesn't turn into outright brainwashing.

Of course if a criminal is committing crimes due to mental illness, then rehabilitation should occur. In cases other than that, however, I fail to see that rehabilitation would be effective. Sane criminals who commit crimes with motives such as greed, anger, and just a clear disrespect for the law don't seem likely to ever be truly rehabilitated. I'm reminded of a "A Clockwork Orange", where it was shown that the only true avenue for being able to curtail the main character's criminal behavior was by psychological manipulation, rather than convincing him to behave in such a way that was consistant with good, lawful behavior.

I'm reminded of a "A Clockwork Orange", where it was shown that the only true avenue for being able to curtail the main character's criminal behavior was by psychological manipulation, rather than convincing him to behave in such a way that was consistant with good, lawful behavior.

Right manipulation is the only way to actually get someone to think or act differently but one its not possible and two its inhumane. I strongly believe that Clockword Orange tried to convey that Rehabilitation does not work. They psychologically manipulated the main character in an inhumane way and he ended up being his normal criminal slef at the end anyway.

I voted Punishment because criminals have specific personalities, they have ineffectively been socialized into society: this was what causes deviance.

3/4 or more of convicted fellons return to jail within 1-3 yrs after being let out!!!

It's not the duty of the state to rehabilitate people. It is the individual's choice if he wishes to be rehabilitated, just as it was the individual's choice to commit the crime. The government should serve to gain 100% restitution to act as a counterbalance to the crime, in order to restore order, protect the innocent and prevent future crimes.

I am all for social conditioning during a person's education so as to encourage them to be good citizens and prevent crime - so long as, that is, it doesn't turn into outright brainwashing.

Certainly brainwashing during the developmental phase would be undesirable -- it would lead to a homogeneity that would stifle innovation, I imagine. Once the person has shown, however, that their current way of interfacing with the world is so maladaptive that others get hurt, why not use brainwashing if that's what it takes to keep everybody safe?

Interestingly, brainwashing is considered extremely harsh, but probably fits the criteria of 'rehabilitation' rather than 'punishment'. Is anybody voting punishment because they feel that punishment done right is more humane than rehabilitation done effectively?