The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Prisons should focus on rehabilitation and not punishment.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Hadii has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 110712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Take a look at Norway for example. They're treated like acutal human beings, prisoners have nice rooms with computers(with internet), couches, comfortable beds, and even video game consoles. Guards also eat and play sports with the inmates, are un-uniformed, and treat prisoners kindly. In some prisons such as Halden (which is a maximum security prison by the way) has music studios with drums, guitars, etc., and encourage their inmates to spend most of their time oustide and playing sports to stay healthy, and even pay them to do so. When criminals in Norway leave prison, they tend to stay out. Norway's reoffending rate is 20% which is one of the lowest in the world.

You already take away their freedom, why punish them even further?


I am all for treating prisoners as human beings, however, there needs to be a punishment and a set time for incarceration. If you are trying to re-educate them and something or someone other than a set time decide when they are done with their time, then you are being unjust. If the end goal is rehabilitation or re-education and they have no desire for re-education, then what would have gotten them a couple months or years could turn into many years. Many people accuse promoters of punishment of seeking vengeance. However, though I won't speak for all, many are concerned with justice. The punishment should meet the crime, and once the sentence is met, they should be released regardless of their attitude because that is what justice requires. If you commit theft, you get so many months or years and no more period. If you commit fraud then you get more years, but don't get more years because you aren't "rehabilitated". Then if you commit another crime, the same applies.
Though I think as a society, we should be more generous in interacting with ex-convicts, and we should give them
opportunities to better themselves, treating them as the human beings they are, correcting wrong-think is dangerous. Though now it is only used to correct behavior, the next step is to correct perceived thought crimes. Saying, unless you reject your beliefs, you will lose your freedom and have to go through whatever re-education those in charge deem necessary. For example, if a certain religion or ideology is considered wrong. You will put these people through whatever treatment to make them aligns with what you or society deems as correct.
Debate Round No. 1


That still does not change the fact that prisons systems that focus on rehabilitation, like Norway, results in a much lower reoffending rate meaning citizens can live safer. I do not believe that prisoners should have their time extended if they are not rehabilitated just that prisons should focus on rehabilitating them rather than just punishment.

I know this is kinda a repeat of my first round (because I didn't have enough time to spare this week), and it sounds rushed and short I just wrote it so the debate won't end (or whatever happens if you don't submit on time) I'll have more to say on my last round.


States should be concerned about justice. Whether you are trying to make an example of the prisoner or "cure" the prisoner, justice will if not right away, eventually be completely ignored. Like in Norway, if they are not rehabilitated they receive 5 more years and continue to receive 5 years more until it is determined that they are rehabilitated, even if the time served doesn't match the crime.
I know you've said, that you don't think people should get more time if they are not "cured". But this is what will eventually happen. It has happened in Norway
If you are trying to make an example out of them you will punish innocent people or let guilty people go as long as society views them as guilty or innocent. Which is also unjust and wrong.
Consequently, states should be mindful of justice. Ensuring the person is truly guilty, making sure that the punishment meets the crime, and not whether or not they are
You will say that it nothing could go wrong because you are looking out for the good of the prisoner. But, the treatment is still compulsory. And it is up to the punishers when the cure is reached and therefore largely subjective, and puts the prisoner on the level of a small child, unable to know right from wrong because you are trying to cure them against their will and possibly of things they do not view as wrong.
Provide the prisoners with ways to better themselves, but don't make it compulsory. Encourage society to give them a second chance, as one who was paid the price for their crimes and offer them a second chance so that they won't feel the need to return the old way of life. But if you are not concerned with justice, evil will be the result, no matter pure your intentions.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by lovetoargue 3 years ago
That's okay. you had some good arguments. You restart the debate with someone else since you already have my debate and probably don't disagree to the degree some people would. :)
Posted by Hadii 3 years ago
Crap, I totally forgot about this debate, sorry.
I guess you automatically win then.
Posted by lighthousedebator 3 years ago
If a person makes plans to murder/rape ect., then that is considered conspiracy to murder/rape. and maybe this is the situation you are talking about. But to say this person is likely to murder because he/she is poor, comes from a single parent home, is mentally unstable, ect., and therefore is more likely to commit murder and therefore such be tried and executed as such is not just. Innocent people will die. If they are mentally unstable we can talk about changing institutionalizing laws and have them committed to a mental hospital and get them to place where they are mentally stable and are better able to take care of themselves. But to say that they are likely to commit a crime because they fit certain demographics even when they have made to formal, provable plans to do so goes against justice. If we go to this and prosecute on here say, evil will be done. Remember gulags of USSR. If someone accused you of having wrong political opinions you would be sent to the gulags where you would be treated as subhuman or even executed on only the here say of one or two people
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
If criminal going to murdered people in the mass. Then they give up that right. I only talking about mass murdered. They shouldn't be able to stay alive. What is the purpose for these murdered to stay alive and waste taxpayers money?
Posted by lighthousedebator 3 years ago
You do realize that China has and has had some pretty serious human rights violations right? Not exactly what we want in America.

Life is special it should not be treated lightly; when handing down the death penalty, prisoners should be able to appeal to make doubly sure justice is being served.

Finally it is not just to punish someone for something they didn't do or even attempt or conspire to do. There can be other methods to prevent crimes but not by punishing those who have certain characteristics of someone who is likely to commit crime that is heinous and not just.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
What I'm proposing here is this. We should only focus on mass murder, serial killers, and persons who torture children. We should have one trail for these individuals who commit these crimes. The death penalty is reached on unanimous 12-member jury finds "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they were met. Given the carnage in the Florida Parkland shooter here and the callous manner in which the shooter went about causing it, the prosecution would not have much difficulty meeting the burden. So once the jury finds this person guilty of these crimes. The death penalty then should be in place immediately. After a week or two, he should be sentenced to death by lethal injection.

One. It will diminish the cost of the trail dramatically.

Second. It will save the taxpayer millions, on the trail and incarnate that person.

Third. These cases would be special. Meaning it will only be for these mass murders and persons who torture children.

Fourth. It would be a universal law. Meaning the federal government will be hearing it. It would be for all 50 states.

Fifth. "Prosecutors can identify at least three such factors here, where Cruz: 1) created a grave risk of death to many people; 2) acted in a way that was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and 3) committed the act in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner."(1)

Sixth. If the government can start a war and stop a war. Then why can't they step in on serious heinous crimes. Such as mass shooters?

Seventh. Why should these mass shooters, or serial killers stay alive? What is the point for them to stay in jail for the rest of their lives?

Eighth. Other countries has a more affected way of handling big crime. Like "China has the largest population on Earth with 1.3 billion people; 5,000 executions would mean one in every 260,000 residents."(2) they also use lethal injection.

Ninth. "EYE for an EYE" "mean we can punish, or even take revenge upon, someone in the exact same manner they used to harm
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.