NationStates Jolt Archive

I came across this on the Political Spectrum survey.
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
How can people actually believe this? Even if the person is in jail for a long, LONG time, even life, we have a responsibility to at least TRY to rehabilitate him or her. Even if you think there's no possible way the person can stop being a murderer/rapist/drug dealer/whatever, don't we owe it to ourselves to make the attempt?

EDIT: Huh, apparently I'm economically left of center and more libertarian than center. That's half a surprise. I thought I was economically right of center.

I came across this on the Political Spectrum survey.

How can people actually believe this? Even if the person is in jail for a long, LONG time, even life, we have a responsibility to at least TRY to rehabilitate him or her. Even if you think there's no possible way the person can stop being a murderer/rapist/drug dealer/whatever, don't we owe it to ourselves to make the attempt?
No. For instnce, if the person has committed the same crime (Robbery, rape, whatever) and been "Rehabilitated" before, they are beyond help and must be removed from society. :)

No. For instnce, if the person has committed the same crime (Robbery, rape, whatever) and been "Rehabilitated" before, they are beyond help and must be removed from society. :)
But that would imply that someone somewhere made the attempt to rehabilitate them at least once. And if they went back to doing their crime, then obviously we failed, which to me says we need to get it right next time.

But that would imply that someone somewhere made the attempt to rehabilitate them at least once. And if they went back to doing their crime, then obviously it failed, which to me says we need to get it right next time.
Well then we disagree, I think it means they are beyond help. Also, if a person removes another's right to live by murdering them, then why should they have the right they apparently have so little respect for? How do they deserve to be let back into society?

Well then we disagree, I think it means they are beyond help. Also, if a person removes another's right to live by murdering them, then why should they have the right they apparently have so little respect for? How do they deserve to be let back into society?
I can agree to disagree. But to answer your question, it's because we don't know the "why," which is as important as any other aspect of the crime. If we know "why" they committed murder, then we can help him/her. Everyone deserves dignity and respect. Even the horrible people. (IMHO)

for rehablition, the criminal first agreed to rehibliate, apologize for his crimes and show that he wasn't do it just for free himself from punishment and continue with his crimes. many don't do it, thus it is waste of time and energy to try and rehibiliate them.
also, some criminals were "rehibliated" and aressted after a while for their continuning crimes. if someone use yor good will before, and backstab you, I don't think he deserve third chance.
more than that, some criminals get very long-terms punishments, and won't stay alive after they will finish their jail period. unless there is chance to shorten their jail period, it is waste to rehabliate them.
lastly, we owe the victims and their families to punish the criminals. care only for the criminal rights and give little punishments for rehibiliation is almost like second rape or murder or whatever, only this time it "made" by the judical system, and those things harm the public reliabilty on the state and her systems.

I don't think that question means that we shouldn't want to do it.
It means that it doesn't work, and so any attempt at it is therefore a waste of time.

I can agree to disagree. But to answer your question, it's because we don't know the "why," which is as important as any other aspect of the crime. If we know "why" they committed murder, then we can help him/her. Everyone deserves dignity and respect. Even the horrible people. (IMHO)
I agree to disagree as well, especially since mitigating factors have to be considered. (By the courts, if they decide it was self defence the person should be pardoned. IMHO):)

*snip*
You know, sometimes I ponder putting *In my absense, assume I agreed with Green israel.* in my sig.:)

But that would imply that someone somewhere made the attempt to rehabilitate them at least once. And if they went back to doing their crime, then obviously we failed, which to me says we need to get it right next time.
we failed? what about the criminal self-responsibility for his acts?
it is almost like someone who shot his parens, and than ask for mercy because he is orphan.
there is some limits for the society responsibility to her members acts.

You know, sometimes I ponder putting *In my absense, assume I agreed with Green israel.* in my sig.:)
thanks. :)

I can't buy the argument that the rights of the victim are greater than the rights of the accused. If the person is found guilty, then society takes it as a given that the person psychologically fits in the category of people that commit that crime (however stereotypical that may be). Even if the person is found "not guilty" people are going to assume s/he got off on a technicality because it would be irresponsible of us to put innocent people through the horrors of an arrest and trial. [/rant]

Look, assuming the person is guilty (the premise of the OP), then I still feel it is in the State's best interest to try to turn them into productive members of society. Even knowing that attempt might fail, it will surely work on enough to warrant its use.

I don't think that question means that we shouldn't want to do it.
It means that it doesn't work, and so any attempt at it is therefore a waste of time.
Yeah, and that's why I disagree with it in the survey.

we failed? what about the criminal self-responsibility for his acts?
it is almost like someone who shot his parens, and than ask for mercy because he is orphan.
there is some limits for the society responsibility to her members acts.
Yep, we failed to rehabilitate him. He still bears the responsibility for his acts, which is why he's incarcerated. But if he comes back, we share some of the guilt.

There are those out there who hold that veiw, unfortunately some of them live next door to me

I can't buy the argument that the rights of the victim are greater than the rights of the accused. their rights are the same, only the criminal already overuse his rights in order to harm or eliminate the rights of the victims. in that case I think the society can harm his rights in order to punish him (like harm his freedom of movement, when he put in jail).

If the person is found guilty, then society takes it as a given that the person psychologically fits in the category of people that commit that crime (however stereotypical that may be). Even if the person is found "not guilty" people are going to assume s/he got off on a technicality because it would be irresponsible of us to put innocent people through the horrors of an arrest and trial. [/rant]if people are innocent it change all the picture. there is a lot of difference between the cases.

Look, assuming the person is guilty (the premise of the OP), then I still feel it is in the State's best interest to try to turn them into productive members of society. Even knowing that attempt might fail, it will surely work on enough to warrant its use.maybe, but not in every case.
my first post gave examples of cases when rehiblition aren't the right answer. we can debated them by their own, or talk only about the rehiblition as general subject (which I didn't atack as whole, but stated that "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals." as you bring in your OP.
what issue we currently disscusing?

I came across this on the Political Spectrum survey.

How can people actually believe this? Even if the person is in jail for a long, LONG time, even life, we have a responsibility to at least TRY to rehabilitate him or her. Even if you think there's no possible way the person can stop being a murderer/rapist/drug dealer/whatever, don't we owe it to ourselves to make the attempt?

EDIT: Huh, apparently I'm economically left of center and more libertarian than center. That's half a surprise. I thought I was economically right of center.
You can't rehabilitate natural behaviour. Just keep them locked up and off the streets and we'll all be ok.

Yep, we failed to rehabilitate him. He still bears the responsibility for his acts, which is why he's incarcerated. But if he comes back, we share some of the guilt.
we share some of his guilt only if he fully tried to rehablitate. in most of the cases return on his crimes show the opposite.
I think criminals are fully responsible for their acts, especially if they bite the hand that help them.

You can't rehabilitate natural behaviour. Just keep them locked up and off the streets and we'll all be ok.
That's about it, really (although IMO it seems wasteful and unnecessarily risky to keep them imprisoned, but that's another thread...).

The OP seems to have forgotten that everyone gets a first chance, that the rules by which society operates are freely and publicly known. After someone has breached them the first time why should it be assumed they won't do so again, no matter how much they've promised to be good?

If you don't like the rules, and there are quite a few silly ones, get them changed before breaking them or face the consequences...

their rights are the same, only the criminal already overuse his rights in order to harm or eliminate the rights of the victims. in that case I think the society can harm his rights in order to punish him (like harm his freedom of movement, when he put in jail).
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a punishment factor involved, but not all sentences are life sentences. This rapists punishment is 20 years incarceration. What happens at 20 years and 1 day, when he's free (assuming no complicating factors like early release). What's to keep him from raping at 20 years and 2 days. If we try to rehabilitate him, then there's a better chance that he won't commit another crime than if we don't try to rehabilitate him.

if people are innocent it change all the picture. there is a lot of difference between the cases.
Agreed, but (at least in the U.S.) there is no distinction made in the courts between "Not Guilty" and "Actually Innocent." (Whether there should be is another discussion for another day.) "Not guilty" doesn't mean "he didn't do it," it just means "the state couldn't prove he did it."

maybe, but not in every case.
my first post gave examples of cases when rehiblition aren't the right answer. we can debated them by their own, or talk only about the rehiblition as general subject (which I didn't atack as whole, but stated that "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals." as you bring in your OP.
what issue we currently disscusing?
This one, I had to rant for a second about the injustices of the "not guilty" verdict. And I know you didn't attack the subject as a whole. And I agree that there are people beyond rehabilitation. I just respectfuly disagree that it's a waste of time to try it on "some people" or for "some crimes."

That's about it, really (although IMO it seems wasteful and unnecessarily risky to keep them imprisoned, but that's another thread...).

it maybe change the subjects, but aren't it is more risky to have them freely walk in the streets?
or you pointed the "solution" of death penalty, which is really different subject?

You can't rehabilitate natural behaviour. Just keep them locked up and off the streets and we'll all be ok.
That assumes rape/child molestation/murder/etc. are natural behaviors. And I agree they should be locked up. But always for life? What if the child molestor is out in 7 years. How do we keep him from molesting again, short of keeping him in jail past what his sentence calls for? (That's another rant for another thread.)

we share some of his guilt only if he fully tried to rehablitate. in most of the cases return on his crimes show the opposite.
I think criminals are fully responsible for their acts, especially if they bite the hand that help them.
I can sort of agree with this. And I gotta tell ya, Greenie, it's weird hearing myself agree with you. :)

That assumes rape/child molestation/murder/etc. are natural behaviors. And I agree they should be locked up. But always for life? What if the child molestor is out in 7 years. How do we keep him from molesting again, short of keeping him in jail past what his sentence calls for? (That's another rant for another thread.)
Don't let him out; he can't be trusted out on the streets. Life should mean life.

Don't let him out; he can't be trusted out on the streets. Life should mean life.
OK. But child molestation doesn't get a life sentence. Unless you count forced registration. But, with very few exceptions, life sentences are limited to murder.

OK. But child molestation doesn't get a life sentence. Unless you count forced registration. But, with very few exceptions, life sentences are limited to murder.
Which is something that should be changed. Child abuse is not a 'learned' behaviour that can be corrected; the only way to keep dangerous people like this off the streets is to lock them up indefinitely.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a punishment factor involved, but not all sentences are life sentences. This rapists punishment is 20 years incarceration. What happens at 20 years and 1 day, when he's free (assuming no complicating factors like early release). What's to keep him from raping at 20 years and 2 days. If we try to rehabilitate him, then there's a better chance that he won't commit another crime than if we don't try to rehabilitate him.in that case rehiblition can be helpfull act. I just think that we can't force him to rehabilitate and if he doesn't fully agree for that it is waste of times and rescucres.
rehiblition should be option for the criminals, but it isn't the state responsibility for them. if they can't rehibliate they should stay at jail.

Agreed, but (at least in the U.S.) there is no distinction made in the courts between "Not Guilty" and "Actually Innocent." (Whether there should be is another discussion for another day.) "Not guilty" doesn't mean "he didn't do it," it just means "the state couldn't prove he did it."part of the bad things in the system. mostly, no one can be acknowledge as fully innocent or criminal because there aren't known ways to find the full "truth".
the label society put on people which were aressted, no matter what happened in the trial, is probably the media for blame, since they put headlines on the arrest, and small passage on the innocency (if they put something at all).

This one, I had to rant for a second about the injustices of the "not guilty" verdict. And I know you didn't attack the subject as a whole. And I agree that there are people beyond rehabilitation. I just respectfuly disagree that it's a waste of time to try it on "some people" or for "some crimes."if "some" people are beyond rehablitation, than at will be waste of time to rehablitate "some" people".
but that is only semantic, so the point is clear.

Which is something that should be changed. Child abuse is not a 'learned' behaviour that can be corrected; the only way to keep dangerous people like this off the streets is to lock them up indefinitely.
Would that we controlled sentencing guidelines (some fucker touches my son's penis and he'd be lucky not to lose his), but that's debated and decided far above our respective levels.

it maybe change the subjects, but aren't it is more risky to have them freely walk in the streets?
or you pointed the "solution" of death penalty, which is really different subject?
Death penalty, just to clarify. That's really another thread; if you should care about my opinions then there was a recent thread on the topic, and they were in that.

Well then we disagree, I think it means they are beyond help. Also, if a person removes another's right to live by murdering them, then why should they have the right they apparently have so little respect for? How do they deserve to be let back into society?
That depends on your view of what rehabilitation is. Yours appears rather narrow.
Even if the criminal has had rehaibilation before-hand, yet still went on to commit more crimes, then we could conclude the rehabilitation isn't adequate. Which can help in further rehabilitation of other criminals.
Further, while this particular case may well be incorrigible so he should be locked up for a lengthy period, it is still perfectly reasonable to continue rehabilitating him - if nothing else to help him accept his crimes and to help him to survive and make more bearable his time in prison. And, equally as important, to reduce the chances of further violence within prison against fellow inmates and/or guards.

I can sort of agree with this. And I gotta tell ya, Greenie, it's weird hearing myself agree with you. :)
if you will try hard enough you can get agreements on some subjects with most of the world. ;)

That depends on your view of what rehabilitation is. Yours appears rather narrow.
Even if the criminal has had rehaibilation before-hand, yet still went on to commit more crimes, then we could conclude the rehabilitation isn't adequate. Which can help in further rehabilitation of other criminals.
Learning from your mistakes=good. I have no objections here.

Further, while this particular case may well be incorrigible so he should be locked up for a lengthy period, it is still perfectly reasonable to continue rehabilitating him - if nothing else to help him accept his crimes and to help him to survive and make more bearable his time in prison. And, equally as important, to reduce the chances of further violence within prison against fellow inmates and/or guards.
This is where I have to disagree locking people up is expensive, I have a solution but that's another thread. Barring that solution, rehabilitation is even more expensive and almost certainly a lost cause. Thusly it's a waste of money.

in that case rehiblition can be helpfull act. I just think that we can't force him to rehabilitate and if he doesn't fully agree for that it is waste of times and rescucres.
rehiblition should be option for the criminals, but it isn't the state responsibility for them. if they can't rehibliate they should stay at jail.
Agreed. How about this: For sentencing, "Your punishment shall be no less than X years with rehabilitation if you choose this option in good faith, until X years or your rehab is complete, whichever is later. If it is determined you chose this option not in good faith, or if rehabilitation cannot be verified independently, your sentence shall be life in prison.

part of the bad things in the system. mostly, no one can be acknowledge as fully innocent or criminal because there aren't known ways to find the full "truth".
the label society put on people which were aressted, no matter what happened in the trial, is probably the media for blame, since they put headlines on the arrest, and small passage on the innocency (if they put something at all).
Yeah, what I said before -- the police don't arrest innocent people because that would be wrong. Therefore, if they were arrested, they must be guilty. :rolleyes:

if "some" people are beyond rehablitation, than at will be waste of time to rehablitate "some" people".
but that is only semantic, so the point is clear.
I'll agree to disagree. :)

Anyone who's read Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein should have a pretty good idea already what my views are...but I'll clarify.

I personally feel that it is far more undignified for humanity to lock up it's criminals than to use other forms of punishment. Locking a person up does little to help and more to harm than almost any other form of punishment.

In my mind, if the crime is severe enough, then kill the criminal...and be quick about it.

If not severe, then fine the crap out of 'em...if they don't learn, they will soon be dirt poor.

To me, rehabilitation only makes sense in the case of property crimes. If the crime is committed directly against another human being, then to me a person who was "rehabilitated" should still feel remorse, to the point that they WANT to stay incarcerated, as a form of self-punishment.

You don't see many criminals asking to stay in prison, therefore I myself find rehabilitation to be, for the most part, a bunch of BS.

There are exceptions, of course, but in my mind they don't amount to a whole lot. Far better to scrap the whole bloated system and start over.

Even if the criminal has had rehaibilation before-hand, yet still went on to commit more crimes, then we could conclude the rehabilitation isn't adequate. Which can help in further rehabilitation of other criminals.
Further, while this particular case may well be incorrigible so he should be locked up for a lengthy period, it is still perfectly reasonable to continue rehabilitating him - if nothing else to help him accept his crimes and to help him to survive and make more bearable his time in prison. And, equally as important, to reduce the chances of further violence within prison against fellow inmates and/or guards.
The drawback to that is that society has finite resources, which should be distributed in such a manner as to benefit the largest number of people as much as possible.
Why use those resources in an attempt to rehabilitate someone who's already demonstrated their contempt for society's rules, when they could be used more productively; education, healthcare, the environment?

Yeah, what I said before -- the police don't arrest innocent people because that would be wrong. Therefore, if they were arrested, they must be guilty. :rolleyes:
I know you're being ironic, but surely nobody seriously believes that? The police will arrest anyone they feel like. If they always got it right you could happily get rid of trials, lawyers (now that would be happy), judges and all that jazz, 'cos the police automagically arrested the right people.

Agreed. How about this: For sentencing, "Your punishment shall be no less than X years with rehabilitation if you choose this option in good faith, until X years or your rehab is complete, whichever is later. If it is determined you chose this option not in good faith, or if rehabilitation cannot be verified independently, your sentence shall be life in prison.fine with me.


Yeah, what I said before -- the police don't arrest innocent people because that would be wrong. Therefore, if they were arrested, they must be guilty. :rolleyes: and therefore full rehiblition of "criminals" should be also rehiblitionof society and fight in streotypes. which is also another thread.
I think this thread is pandora box for all the semi-related subjects.

I'll agree to disagree. :)
than this is close argument. :)

I know you're being ironic, but surely nobody seriously believes that? The police will arrest anyone they feel like. If they always got it right you could happily get rid of trials, lawyers (now that would be happy), judges and all that jazz, 'cos the police automagically arrested the right people.
Some people do seriously believe it. (And don't call me Shirley :D ) I can tell you a bunch in my own family. "They do thorough investigations, check all the evidence. If the police arrested them, they must have had compelling evidence to do so." I've argued against that line of thought until I was blue in the face, but to no avail.

I think this thread is pandora box for all the semi-related subjects.

Yeah, I have to go to bed now, but when I check on it again at work in the morning, I just know it'll have been hijacked about four or five times.

This is where I have to disagree locking people up is expensive, I have a solution but that's another thread. Barring that solution, rehabilitation is even more expensive and almost certainly a lost cause. Thusly it's a waste of money.
But again, it's a question of what is a waste of money or not.
If you have a person with violent tendancies, keeping them locked up isn't going to reduce those tendancies. They'll be directed, eventually, against other inmates and/or guards and/or the prisoner himself.
If rehabilitation can stop these tendancies it could well save money in other ways (eg. hospitalisation costs).

Rehabilitation works for some criminals and not others. The problem is that it is generally not possible to know in advance who it will work for and who it won't. So you have a choice: you can try to rehabilitate everyone, taking the risk that some "rehabilitated" criminals will commit further crimes; or you can try to rehabiliate no one, and keep people locked up who might otherwise become productive members of society - and incidentally keeping the prisons overcrowded and requiring additional tax money to feed and house all those extra prisoners. (Ever notice that the people with the "lock 'em all up for good" mentality are often the people who are least willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it?)

(Ever notice that the people with the "lock 'em all up for good" mentality are often the people who are least willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it?)
Perhaps because of the low cost of a certain alternative?

Perhaps because of the low cost of a certain alternative?
And what alternative would that be? Mass executions? Sorry, but it's been shown time and again that executing someone costs more than life imprisonment.

Now, of course, you can cut down on that cost by eliminating the right to appeal a death sentence, provided that you are willing to accept the likelihood of executing innocent people - and the possibility that you, yourself, may someday be one of those innocent people. Are you willing to take that chance? I'm not, because too many mistakes are made under the current system, and eliminating appeals would eliminate the only way to avoid additional mistakes. :rolleyes:

Some people would not rehabilitate though... You would have got nowhere with Shipman, and the governemnt knew it wasnt worth trying, so they just let him rot in his cell till he commmited suicide.

Economic Left/Right: 5.00 further than Hitler
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 6.77 further than Thatcher

I don't think that it is the business of the state to rehabilitate criminals- the person who committed the crimes has the responsibility of choosing himself if he wants to be rehabilitated, just as he chose himself to commit the crime. If he is unable to choose for himself, then his family and friends can help him be rehabilitated and pay for it, but it's still not the state's responsibility to make individuals better. The state's responsibility is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property, and the state should always err on the side of the innocent by keeping criminals out of society so as to prevent them from ever committing a crime against the innocent again, so as to fully and correctly perform their duty. Anything less is a failure of the government.

I came across this on the Political Spectrum survey.

How can people actually believe this? Even if the person is in jail for a long, LONG time, even life, we have a responsibility to at least TRY to rehabilitate him or her. Even if you think there's no possible way the person can stop being a murderer/rapist/drug dealer/whatever, don't we owe it to ourselves to make the attempt?

EDIT: Huh, apparently I'm economically left of center and more libertarian than center. That's half a surprise. I thought I was economically right of center.

It gets better, some people believe the whole "eye for an eye" thing when it comes to crime and reject rehabilitation entirely. I've found it's especially the case about those people who have wet dreams about shooting a criminal who enters their house. Fear is a great motivator for brutalizing criminals.

Still, I think the statement is close to truth when talking about a small percentage of the people in jail. I hold out hope for everyone, but some people are just too far down the path to be reeled back into society.