Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Rehabilitation is NOT the primary goal of CJ

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 8:04:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am tired of hearing people say that the goal of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not punishment. While rehabilitation is applicable in some cases, like getting an education to avoid crimes of poverty despration like burglary or armed robbery, or rehab for drug offenders or wife beater, the simple truth is, the vast majority of major sentences are likely not in need of rehabilitation, IMO.

Is the woman who killed her husband and his mistress when she walked in on them having sex in her bed likely to repeat this crime? No. So, if rehabilitation is the primary goal, then she should get off with a fine.

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.
My work here is, finally, done.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:28:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 8:04:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am tired of hearing people say that the goal of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not punishment. While rehabilitation is applicable in some cases, like getting an education to avoid crimes of poverty despration like burglary or armed robbery, or rehab for drug offenders or wife beater, the simple truth is, the vast majority of major sentences are likely not in need of rehabilitation, IMO.

Is the woman who killed her husband and his mistress when she walked in on them having sex in her bed likely to repeat this crime? No. So, if rehabilitation is the primary goal, then she should get off with a fine.

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the moral implications of constructing a system designed solely to punish people, creating a system based only around punishment does not produce better people or members for society. Evidence has demonstrated that prisons designed for rehabilitation over punishment are vastly more successful at combatting crime. The US has a prison system mostly designed for punishment. And look at it. 5% of the global population but 25% of the global prison population. Punishment systems also encourage private prisons, which is a terrible idea for fairly obvious reasons.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:53:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 9:28:59 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2014 8:04:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am tired of hearing people say that the goal of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not punishment. While rehabilitation is applicable in some cases, like getting an education to avoid crimes of poverty despration like burglary or armed robbery, or rehab for drug offenders or wife beater, the simple truth is, the vast majority of major sentences are likely not in need of rehabilitation, IMO.

Is the woman who killed her husband and his mistress when she walked in on them having sex in her bed likely to repeat this crime? No. So, if rehabilitation is the primary goal, then she should get off with a fine.

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the moral implications of constructing a system designed solely to punish people, creating a system based only around punishment does not produce better people or members for society. Evidence has demonstrated that prisons designed for rehabilitation over punishment are vastly more successful at combatting crime. The US has a prison system mostly designed for punishment. And look at it. 5% of the global population but 25% of the global prison population. Punishment systems also encourage private prisons, which is a terrible idea for fairly obvious reasons.

1. Not solely to punish, but primarily.
2. A good chunk of our prison system is also drug offenders, which is debatable, as why are drugs a punishable offense, and the fact there are task forces means that certain crimes are focused on.
I think the correlation is not causation here. For example, we don't execute murderers en masse, where other countries may do so.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:21:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 9:53:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 9:28:59 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2014 8:04:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am tired of hearing people say that the goal of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not punishment. While rehabilitation is applicable in some cases, like getting an education to avoid crimes of poverty despration like burglary or armed robbery, or rehab for drug offenders or wife beater, the simple truth is, the vast majority of major sentences are likely not in need of rehabilitation, IMO.

Is the woman who killed her husband and his mistress when she walked in on them having sex in her bed likely to repeat this crime? No. So, if rehabilitation is the primary goal, then she should get off with a fine.

I disagree. I think the answer is yes. Specifically, if the woman got married again and walked in on her new husband who also had a mistress having sex in her bed, it's highly likely she will kill him again unless she is remorseful and repentant from her first killing. My argument assumes that people caught in such a situation would not respond with unjustifiable murder under most circumstances, making her case an outlier subject to rehabilitation.

Part of her rehabilitation would be to explore the life choices that caused her to find murder as an appropriate response in such a situation.

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the moral implications of constructing a system designed solely to punish people, creating a system based only around punishment does not produce better people or members for society. Evidence has demonstrated that prisons designed for rehabilitation over punishment are vastly more successful at combatting crime. The US has a prison system mostly designed for punishment. And look at it. 5% of the global population but 25% of the global prison population. Punishment systems also encourage private prisons, which is a terrible idea for fairly obvious reasons.

1. Not solely to punish, but primarily.
2. A good chunk of our prison system is also drug offenders, which is debatable, as why are drugs a punishable offense, and the fact there are task forces means that certain crimes are focused on.
I think the correlation is not causation here. For example, we don't execute murderers en masse, where other countries may do so.

I think capital punishment and even life in prison is outlawed in Europe on human rights grounds. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...) Amazing what you can learn from some of the debates here. So I would say that compared to other OECD nations, we are behind the curve in this sense. I'm not sure I agree (at all) with such a "humane" stance, but it's certainly placing far less emphasis on punishment than we do.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:26:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 10:21:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/29/2014 9:53:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 9:28:59 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2014 8:04:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am tired of hearing people say that the goal of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not punishment. While rehabilitation is applicable in some cases, like getting an education to avoid crimes of poverty despration like burglary or armed robbery, or rehab for drug offenders or wife beater, the simple truth is, the vast majority of major sentences are likely not in need of rehabilitation, IMO.

Is the woman who killed her husband and his mistress when she walked in on them having sex in her bed likely to repeat this crime? No. So, if rehabilitation is the primary goal, then she should get off with a fine.

I disagree. I think the answer is yes. Specifically, if the woman got married again and walked in on her new husband who also had a mistress having sex in her bed, it's highly likely she will kill him again unless she is remorseful and repentant from her first killing. My argument assumes that people caught in such a situation would not respond with unjustifiable murder under most circumstances, making her case an outlier subject to rehabilitation.

Part of her rehabilitation would be to explore the life choices that caused her to find murder as an appropriate response in such a situation.

I don't think rehabilitation is going to help in instances of extreme emotional disturbances.
Rehabilitation can help a man stop beating his wife, but I don't think an emotional response can be controlled. (see: gay reconditioning)

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the moral implications of constructing a system designed solely to punish people, creating a system based only around punishment does not produce better people or members for society. Evidence has demonstrated that prisons designed for rehabilitation over punishment are vastly more successful at combatting crime. The US has a prison system mostly designed for punishment. And look at it. 5% of the global population but 25% of the global prison population. Punishment systems also encourage private prisons, which is a terrible idea for fairly obvious reasons.

1. Not solely to punish, but primarily.
2. A good chunk of our prison system is also drug offenders, which is debatable, as why are drugs a punishable offense, and the fact there are task forces means that certain crimes are focused on.
I think the correlation is not causation here. For example, we don't execute murderers en masse, where other countries may do so.

I think capital punishment and even life in prison is outlawed in Europe on human rights grounds. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...) Amazing what you can learn from some of the debates here. So I would say that compared to other OECD nations, we are behind the curve in this sense. I'm not sure I agree (at all) with such a "humane" stance, but it's certainly placing far less emphasis on punishment than we do.

I was thinking more along the lines of Korea, China, India, Africa, and Mexico. Places that may be corrupt, and have a huge segment of the population.
Also, a good chunk of our prisoners are non-violent, and ought not be in prison.
Jail, maybe, but not prison.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:41:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 10:26:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 10:21:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/29/2014 9:53:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 9:28:59 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2014 8:04:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am tired of hearing people say that the goal of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not punishment. While rehabilitation is applicable in some cases, like getting an education to avoid crimes of poverty despration like burglary or armed robbery, or rehab for drug offenders or wife beater, the simple truth is, the vast majority of major sentences are likely not in need of rehabilitation, IMO.

Is the woman who killed her husband and his mistress when she walked in on them having sex in her bed likely to repeat this crime? No. So, if rehabilitation is the primary goal, then she should get off with a fine.

I disagree. I think the answer is yes. Specifically, if the woman got married again and walked in on her new husband who also had a mistress having sex in her bed, it's highly likely she will kill him again unless she is remorseful and repentant from her first killing. My argument assumes that people caught in such a situation would not respond with unjustifiable murder under most circumstances, making her case an outlier subject to rehabilitation.

Part of her rehabilitation would be to explore the life choices that caused her to find murder as an appropriate response in such a situation.

I don't think rehabilitation is going to help in instances of extreme emotional disturbances.
Rehabilitation can help a man stop beating his wife, but I don't think an emotional response can be controlled. (see: gay reconditioning)

I think you're right, in which case perhaps part of the rehabilitation would involve precluding such circumstances from forming in the first place. So, if she has strong emotional reactions to cheating husbands, perhaps part of her rehabilitation would be to recommend/convince her not to remarry. I think this is within social purview given that she is now a criminal, thereby meaning that she has fewer rights than the rest of us.

If that proves to be impossible, her prison term would then be a "just" solution to separate her from the rest of society. The ostensible goal would be to hold out for a rehabilitative solution to her problem, and yes, society has deemed this a problem.

Note: I'm not advocating reduced prison terms for the rehabilitated. I'm only advocating that prison's primary purpose during the prison term should be rehabilitation. I don't have experience in this, but I would think the length of the term itself is rehabilitative...assuming they are not further punished and/or abused while in prison.

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the moral implications of constructing a system designed solely to punish people, creating a system based only around punishment does not produce better people or members for society. Evidence has demonstrated that prisons designed for rehabilitation over punishment are vastly more successful at combatting crime. The US has a prison system mostly designed for punishment. And look at it. 5% of the global population but 25% of the global prison population. Punishment systems also encourage private prisons, which is a terrible idea for fairly obvious reasons.

1. Not solely to punish, but primarily.
2. A good chunk of our prison system is also drug offenders, which is debatable, as why are drugs a punishable offense, and the fact there are task forces means that certain crimes are focused on.
I think the correlation is not causation here. For example, we don't execute murderers en masse, where other countries may do so.

I think capital punishment and even life in prison is outlawed in Europe on human rights grounds. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...) Amazing what you can learn from some of the debates here. So I would say that compared to other OECD nations, we are behind the curve in this sense. I'm not sure I agree (at all) with such a "humane" stance, but it's certainly placing far less emphasis on punishment than we do.

I was thinking more along the lines of Korea, China, India, Africa, and Mexico. Places that may be corrupt, and have a huge segment of the population.
Also, a good chunk of our prisoners are non-violent, and ought not be in prison.
Jail, maybe, but not prison.

Those places are poor, too, which may lend to corruption (i.e. can't afford proper judicial procedures, which are not only procedures but are also about physical surroundings and provisions which poor countries cannot afford). With more corruption comes more abuse and punishment, I'll certainly agree with that. I'm not sure we should be comparing our justice system to theirs though...the wealth differential is too great. We should be comparing ours to countries with similar wealth standards.

Agree with you on non-violent prisoners and the overall discussion on drug offenders.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:07:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 10:41:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/29/2014 10:26:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 10:21:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/29/2014 9:53:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 9:28:59 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2014 8:04:58 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am tired of hearing people say that the goal of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not punishment. While rehabilitation is applicable in some cases, like getting an education to avoid crimes of poverty despration like burglary or armed robbery, or rehab for drug offenders or wife beater, the simple truth is, the vast majority of major sentences are likely not in need of rehabilitation, IMO.

Is the woman who killed her husband and his mistress when she walked in on them having sex in her bed likely to repeat this crime? No. So, if rehabilitation is the primary goal, then she should get off with a fine.

I disagree. I think the answer is yes. Specifically, if the woman got married again and walked in on her new husband who also had a mistress having sex in her bed, it's highly likely she will kill him again unless she is remorseful and repentant from her first killing. My argument assumes that people caught in such a situation would not respond with unjustifiable murder under most circumstances, making her case an outlier subject to rehabilitation.

Part of her rehabilitation would be to explore the life choices that caused her to find murder as an appropriate response in such a situation.

I don't think rehabilitation is going to help in instances of extreme emotional disturbances.
Rehabilitation can help a man stop beating his wife, but I don't think an emotional response can be controlled. (see: gay reconditioning)

I think you're right, in which case perhaps part of the rehabilitation would involve precluding such circumstances from forming in the first place. So, if she has strong emotional reactions to cheating husbands, perhaps part of her rehabilitation would be to recommend/convince her not to remarry. I think this is within social purview given that she is now a criminal, thereby meaning that she has fewer rights than the rest of us.
Again, an otherwise "normal" person gets angry. No prudent measures can be taken.
Should a man who kills another for raping his daughter have his daughter be killed so he won't be provoked? Should he remain in prison until his daughter is dead?

Using the cheated widow, if she agrees not to remarry ever, then why not let her leave? Her punishment is not being married (or in any relationship), so jail is solely punitive and unnecessary.

If that proves to be impossible, her prison term would then be a "just" solution to separate her from the rest of society. The ostensible goal would be to hold out for a rehabilitative solution to her problem, and yes, society has deemed this a problem.
Why are people's justifiable anger (not necessarily their actions) in need of rehabilitation, though? If she were told by her husband that he had an affair, and she killed him in her bed in her apartment two months later in cold blood, again, why punish her, is there is nothing to rehabilitate: she got revenge.

Prison (i.e. most felonies) is punitive in nature, and ought to be.
Rehabilitation is an after thought, and often unworkable for these people.
Fraud, armed robbery, rape - these are crimes of greed
burglary, grand theft - is likely a crime of greed or desparation
murder, manslaughter - is likely a crime of greed or passion

There is no way to shield these events from ever occurring.

Note: I'm not advocating reduced prison terms for the rehabilitated. I'm only advocating that prison's primary purpose during the prison term should be rehabilitation. I don't have experience in this, but I would think the length of the term itself is rehabilitative...assuming they are not further punished and/or abused while in prison.
I am not opposed to this.
I have run into some people here, and IRL, who cite that we need to, or even that the purpose of prison/justice system is to, rehabilitate offenders. I am saying that is false and largely ineffective for those in prison.

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the moral implications of constructing a system designed solely to punish people, creating a system based only around punishment does not produce better people or members for society. Evidence has demonstrated that prisons designed for rehabilitation over punishment are vastly more successful at combatting crime. The US has a prison system mostly designed for punishment. And look at it. 5% of the global population but 25% of the global prison population. Punishment systems also encourage private prisons, which is a terrible idea for fairly obvious reasons.

1. Not solely to punish, but primarily.
2. A good chunk of our prison system is also drug offenders, which is debatable, as why are drugs a punishable offense, and the fact there are task forces means that certain crimes are focused on.
I think the correlation is not causation here. For example, we don't execute murderers en masse, where other countries may do so.

I think capital punishment and even life in prison is outlawed in Europe on human rights grounds. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...) Amazing what you can learn from some of the debates here. So I would say that compared to other OECD nations, we are behind the curve in this sense. I'm not sure I agree (at all) with such a "humane" stance, but it's certainly placing far less emphasis on punishment than we do.

I was thinking more along the lines of Korea, China, India, Africa, and Mexico. Places that may be corrupt, and have a huge segment of the population.
Also, a good chunk of our prisoners are non-violent, and ought not be in prison.
Jail, maybe, but not prison.

Those places are poor, too, which may lend to corruption (i.e. can't afford proper judicial procedures, which are not only procedures but are also about physical surroundings and provisions which poor countries cannot afford). With more corruption comes more abuse and punishment, I'll certainly agree with that. I'm not sure we should be comparing our justice system to theirs though...the wealth differential is too great. We should be comparing ours to countries with similar wealth standards.

I brought this up because of the state of 5% pop, yet 25% of prison pop.
Wealth is not a factor in the stat.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:21:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I guess I should probably say at this point that I am a strong advocate for rehabilitation.

At 1/29/2014 11:07:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 10:41:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I don't think rehabilitation is going to help in instances of extreme emotional disturbances.
Rehabilitation can help a man stop beating his wife, but I don't think an emotional response can be controlled. (see: gay reconditioning)

I think you're right, in which case perhaps part of the rehabilitation would involve precluding such circumstances from forming in the first place. So, if she has strong emotional reactions to cheating husbands, perhaps part of her rehabilitation would be to recommend/convince her not to remarry. I think this is within social purview given that she is now a criminal, thereby meaning that she has fewer rights than the rest of us.
Again, an otherwise "normal" person gets angry. No prudent measures can be taken.

I agree a normal person gets angry. A normal person however does not translate that anger into murder.

Should a man who kills another for raping his daughter have his daughter be killed so he won't be provoked? Should he remain in prison until his daughter is dead?

That's quite possibly self-defense. It's quite possible if the man walked into his daughter getting raped or about to be raped, that if he killed the man at that point, he'd be exonerated of any wrong-doing, i.e. the whole "affirmative defense" deal we discussed in the other thread. Such a person would not even face any prison time.

Now, if you're talking about retributive killing, yes that's a big problem, and the man should be found guilty of it. We have a justice system to deal with rapists. People should not be taking the law into their own hands.

Using the cheated widow, if she agrees not to remarry ever, then why not let her leave? Her punishment is not being married (or in any relationship), so jail is solely punitive and unnecessary.

The time spent in jail could be seen as rehabilitative. I suppose a natural reference may do here...after a fire, a tree takes time to grow back into health. I would use that kind of logic for this woman too.

If that proves to be impossible, her prison term would then be a "just" solution to separate her from the rest of society. The ostensible goal would be to hold out for a rehabilitative solution to her problem, and yes, society has deemed this a problem.

Why are people's justifiable anger (not necessarily their actions) in need of rehabilitation, though?

Right, her ACTIONS are what needs to be rehabilitated, not her justifiable anger, I fully agree here.

If she were told by her husband that he had an affair, and she killed him in her bed in her apartment two months later in cold blood, again, why punish her, is there is nothing to rehabilitate: she got revenge.

Revenge requires rehabilitation. The entire concept of rehabilitation is to not seek revenge, so those that do would require rehabilitation.

Prison (i.e. most felonies) is punitive in nature, and ought to be.
Rehabilitation is an after thought, and often unworkable for these people.
Fraud, armed robbery, rape - these are crimes of greed
burglary, grand theft - is likely a crime of greed or desparation
murder, manslaughter - is likely a crime of greed or passion

There is no way to shield these events from ever occurring.

I disagree that crime is simply an inevitable response to our surroundings and cannot be controlled for or rehabilitated. Greed and desperation can be rehabilitated, IMHO. Passion much less so, which is what we discussed above.

All of these could be rehabilitated by a change of surroundings...after the prison time of course.

Note: I'm not advocating reduced prison terms for the rehabilitated. I'm only advocating that prison's primary purpose during the prison term should be rehabilitation. I don't have experience in this, but I would think the length of the term itself is rehabilitative...assuming they are not further punished and/or abused while in prison.
I am not opposed to this.
I have run into some people here, and IRL, who cite that we need to, or even that the purpose of prison/justice system is to, rehabilitate offenders. I am saying that is false and largely ineffective for those in prison.

I agree that prison should be more than just rehabilitation, and that once rehabilitated, prisoners should still do their time. I just think that rehabilitation should be the primary focus of that prison time, as opposed to further punishment.

The primary goal of criminal justice is punishment.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the moral implications of constructing a system designed solely to punish people, creating a system based only around punishment does not produce better people or members for society. Evidence has demonstrated that prisons designed for rehabilitation over punishment are vastly more successful at combatting crime. The US has a prison system mostly designed for punishment. And look at it. 5% of the global population but 25% of the global prison population. Punishment systems also encourage private prisons, which is a terrible idea for fairly obvious reasons.

1. Not solely to punish, but primarily.
2. A good chunk of our prison system is also drug offenders, which is debatable, as why are drugs a punishable offense, and the fact there are task forces means that certain crimes are focused on.
I think the correlation is not causation here. For example, we don't execute murderers en masse, where other countries may do so.

I think capital punishment and even life in prison is outlawed in Europe on human rights grounds. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...) Amazing what you can learn from some of the debates here. So I would say that compared to other OECD nations, we are behind the curve in this sense. I'm not sure I agree (at all) with such a "humane" stance, but it's certainly placing far less emphasis on punishment than we do.

I was thinking more along the lines of Korea, China, India, Africa, and Mexico. Places that may be corrupt, and have a huge segment of the population.
Also, a good chunk of our prisoners are non-violent, and ought not be in prison.
Jail, maybe, but not prison.

Those places are poor, too, which may lend to corruption (i.e. can't afford proper judicial procedures, which are not only procedures but are also about physical surroundings and provisions which poor countries cannot afford). With more corruption comes more abuse and punishment, I'll certainly agree with that. I'm not sure we should be comparing our justice system to theirs though...the wealth differential is too great. We should be comparing ours to countries with similar wealth standards.

I brought this up because of the state of 5% pop, yet 25% of prison pop.
Wealth is not a factor in the stat.

That probably stems from your point on drug incarcerations.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:41:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 11:21:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I guess I should probably say at this point that I am a strong advocate for rehabilitation.
Filthy hippie ;)

At 1/29/2014 11:07:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 10:41:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:


I don't think rehabilitation is going to help in instances of extreme emotional disturbances.
Rehabilitation can help a man stop beating his wife, but I don't think an emotional response can be controlled. (see: gay reconditioning)

I think you're right, in which case perhaps part of the rehabilitation would involve precluding such circumstances from forming in the first place. So, if she has strong emotional reactions to cheating husbands, perhaps part of her rehabilitation would be to recommend/convince her not to remarry. I think this is within social purview given that she is now a criminal, thereby meaning that she has fewer rights than the rest of us.
Again, an otherwise "normal" person gets angry. No prudent measures can be taken.

I agree a normal person gets angry. A normal person however does not translate that anger into murder.

Should a man who kills another for raping his daughter have his daughter be killed so he won't be provoked? Should he remain in prison until his daughter is dead?

That's quite possibly self-defense. It's quite possible if the man walked into his daughter getting raped or about to be raped, that if he killed the man at that point, he'd be exonerated of any wrong-doing, i.e. the whole "affirmative defense" deal we discussed in the other thread. Such a person would not even face any prison time.

Now, if you're talking about retributive killing, yes that's a big problem, and the man should be found guilty of it. We have a justice system to deal with rapists. People should not be taking the law into their own hands.


Using the cheated widow, if she agrees not to remarry ever, then why not let her leave? Her punishment is not being married (or in any relationship), so jail is solely punitive and unnecessary.

The time spent in jail could be seen as rehabilitative. I suppose a natural reference may do here...after a fire, a tree takes time to grow back into health. I would use that kind of logic for this woman too.
Interesting take on it.
Perhaps they are one in the same. But, when people say what the OP suggests, I don't think this is what they are referring to.

If that proves to be impossible, her prison term would then be a "just" solution to separate her from the rest of society. The ostensible goal would be to hold out for a rehabilitative solution to her problem, and yes, society has deemed this a problem.

Why are people's justifiable anger (not necessarily their actions) in need of rehabilitation, though?

Right, her ACTIONS are what needs to be rehabilitated, not her justifiable anger, I fully agree here.

If she were told by her husband that he had an affair, and she killed him in her bed in her apartment two months later in cold blood, again, why punish her, is there is nothing to rehabilitate: she got revenge.

Revenge requires rehabilitation. The entire concept of rehabilitation is to not seek revenge, so those that do would require rehabilitation.

Prison (i.e. most felonies) is punitive in nature, and ought to be.
Rehabilitation is an after thought, and often unworkable for these people.
Fraud, armed robbery, rape - these are crimes of greed
burglary, grand theft - is likely a crime of greed or desparation
murder, manslaughter - is likely a crime of greed or passion

There is no way to shield these events from ever occurring.

I disagree that crime is simply an inevitable response to our surroundings and cannot be controlled for or rehabilitated. Greed and desperation can be rehabilitated, IMHO. Passion much less so, which is what we discussed above.
Did you purposely miss the point of this respone, or was I unclear?
I am saying that most crime is an emotional response, with violent crime often being immediate, and that cannot be rehabilitated. It is not an excuse, but it just takes one slip up. So, what good is the rehabilitation if the success rate is so low (and to be fair, the opportunity rate is often low as well).

Gay rehabilitiation, AA, anger management all have horrible track records, because, over time, people give into their constant temptation (for crimes of greed, if they have a proclivity for it).
Extreme emotional outburts of violence, like killing your daughter's rapist (not in the act, c'mon) are unlikely to occur again. But the point is, you CANNOT prepare yourself for that. Thus, if as you suggested, the cheated wife should be barred from marriage to mitigate the possibility of relapse, there is no practical way to prevent it.

All of these could be rehabilitated by a change of surroundings...after the prison time of course.
You can't control the surroundings of an extreme emotional response.
But, by all means, while in prison, you can try.
The point is, prison's purpose is not for rehabilitation, it is for punishment.
I am not opposed to it, I am merely saying it is not the primary objective.

Note: I'm not advocating reduced prison terms for the rehabilitated. I'm only advocating that prison's primary purpose during the prison term should be rehabilitation. I don't have experience in this, but I would think the length of the term itself is rehabilitative...assuming they are not further punished and/or abused while in prison.
I am not opposed to this.
I have run into some people here, and IRL, who cite that we need to, or even that the purpose of prison/justice system is to, rehabilitate offenders. I am saying that is false and largely ineffective for those in prison.

I agree that prison should be more than just rehabilitation, and that once rehabilitated, prisoners should still do their time. I just think that rehabilitation should be the primary focus of that prison time, as opposed to further punishment.

Perhaps this is worth exploring...
What do you mean further punishment?
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 12:03:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 11:41:15 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 11:21:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I guess I should probably say at this point that I am a strong advocate for rehabilitation.
Filthy hippie ;)

rofl...I'm anything BUT a hippie, that much I can assure you. =)

Don't let my location fool you man...

At 1/29/2014 11:07:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2014 10:41:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
[etc]
The time spent in jail could be seen as rehabilitative. I suppose a natural reference may do here...after a fire, a tree takes time to grow back into health. I would use that kind of logic for this woman too.
Interesting take on it.
Perhaps they are one in the same. But, when people say what the OP suggests, I don't think this is what they are referring to.

Yeah I can definitely see that, I think I know where you're coming from. I'm most definitely not from the camp that just wants peace and flowers and such, ban the military, abolish the police and everyone sing kumbaya and live happily ever after. I am most definitely not from that camp.

However, I do see the need for rehabilitation concurrent with prison time.

If that proves to be impossible, her prison term would then be a "just" solution to separate her from the rest of society. The ostensible goal would be to hold out for a rehabilitative solution to her problem, and yes, society has deemed this a problem.

Why are people's justifiable anger (not necessarily their actions) in need of rehabilitation, though?

Right, her ACTIONS are what needs to be rehabilitated, not her justifiable anger, I fully agree here.

If she were told by her husband that he had an affair, and she killed him in her bed in her apartment two months later in cold blood, again, why punish her, is there is nothing to rehabilitate: she got revenge.

Revenge requires rehabilitation. The entire concept of rehabilitation is to not seek revenge, so those that do would require rehabilitation.

Prison (i.e. most felonies) is punitive in nature, and ought to be.
Rehabilitation is an after thought, and often unworkable for these people.
Fraud, armed robbery, rape - these are crimes of greed
burglary, grand theft - is likely a crime of greed or desparation
murder, manslaughter - is likely a crime of greed or passion

There is no way to shield these events from ever occurring.

I disagree that crime is simply an inevitable response to our surroundings and cannot be controlled for or rehabilitated. Greed and desperation can be rehabilitated, IMHO. Passion much less so, which is what we discussed above.
Did you purposely miss the point of this respone, or was I unclear?
I am saying that most crime is an emotional response, with violent crime often being immediate, and that cannot be rehabilitated. It is not an excuse, but it just takes one slip up. So, what good is the rehabilitation if the success rate is so low (and to be fair, the opportunity rate is often low as well).

I think you were clear...perhaps I should clarify because I understand your point and apparently did not convey my response in an understandable manner.

I don't see greed being a crime of passion (i.e. emotional). Desperation I do, but desperation can be rehabilitated. Crimes of passion themselves more than likely will be very difficult to rehabilitate, I fully agree with you there...I think the time in solitude would be a good rehabilitation for that specifically.

Gay rehabilitiation, AA, anger management all have horrible track records, because, over time, people give into their constant temptation (for crimes of greed, if they have a proclivity for it).

I've met someone who rehabilitated from an insane alcohol addiction...instead, he became a chain smoker that plays WoW-type games for most of his waking existence, lol. No alcohol though =)

Here's the thing...did rehabilitation work? Yes. An alcohol addiction severely impaired his ability to work, whereas the various other addictions he has now do not. So, they changed the action, but not necessarily the emotional/psychological/whatever part of the person. He still has an insanely addictive personality...just that he's able to channel that in ways that don't harm himself or others around him.

The guy was hilarious, man...he was able to talk with a cigarette in his mouth as if it was part of his tongue, lol.

Extreme emotional outburts of violence, like killing your daughter's rapist (not in the act, c'mon) are unlikely to occur again. But the point is, you CANNOT prepare yourself for that. Thus, if as you suggested, the cheated wife should be barred from marriage to mitigate the possibility of relapse, there is no practical way to prevent it.

I disagree. You can very much prepare yourself and prevent yourself from committing a fully premeditated murder based upon your personal sense of justice. It requires having faith in the justice system.

Now, if the justice system failed such an individual...so for example, let's say your daughter's rapist was let off the hook on a technicality and so you killed him out of fear...that's a much grayer line. That's a tough case and I'd have to think about that more before giving a response.

All of these could be rehabilitated by a change of surroundings...after the prison time of course.
You can't control the surroundings of an extreme emotional response.

You can. You just take the person out of the environment that caused the response. Woman hates cheating husbands? Get her away from her husband.

But, by all means, while in prison, you can try.
The point is, prison's purpose is not for rehabilitation, it is for punishment.
I am not opposed to it, I am merely saying it is not the primary objective.

How about this...where I'm coming from is that without rehabilitation, the punishment is useless. What you seem to be saying is that without punishment, rehabilitation is a joke, and I agree with you on that if that's the point you're making.

So, I think the two need to occur at the same time, and if you drop one part, the whole thing is not gonna work. I think most people do not emphasize rehabilitation enough, which is why I'm a strong advocate for it.

Note: I'm not advocating reduced prison terms for the rehabilitated. I'm only advocating that prison's primary purpose during the prison term should be rehabilitation. I don't have experience in this, but I would think the length of the term itself is rehabilitative...assuming they are not further punished and/or abused while in prison.
I am not opposed to this.
I have run into some people here, and IRL, who cite that we need to, or even that the purpose of prison/justice system is to, rehabilitate offenders. I am saying that is false and largely ineffective for those in prison.

I agree that prison should be more than just rehabilitation, and that once rehabilitated, prisoners should still do their time. I just think that rehabilitation should be the primary focus of that prison time, as opposed to further punishment.

Perhaps this is worth exploring...
What do you mean further punishment?

Well, some people think that those that are sent to prison should be punished beyond their stated sentence...such people would think that in-prison violence and killings and etc are justifiable and part of their sentence. IMHO that should NOT happen.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 5:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I haven't read all the posts so far so sorry if I am repeating something already said.

Criminal penalties exist for two reasons, IMO: rehabilitation and deterrence.

Deterrence can be primary or secondary. Primary deterrence keeps a known offender off the streets, so that s/he won't continue to commit crime, until s/he seems to indicate that s/he will not commit that crime they were penalized for again. Secondary deterrence warns people that crime will be met with penalties and, if it works, prevents them from committing as many crimes as they would have in the absence of criminal penalties.

What is the point of punishment for punishment's sake? I have heard that it provides peace of mind to the victims and/or their families and that it has some kind of "healing" or "restoring" effect on communities by providing closure to the damage done by a crime. I disagree with this. Closure comes from compassionate deeds and measures to prevent future harm, not from punishment itself. If our culture seems to demand harm as payment for harm in order to provide true closure, then our culture is wrong and needs to change.