Celsus

This topic seems to come up as a side reference in many threads, and I was just wondering what the views are here. Apologies if this topic has been done before (or if it belongs in Political Discussions).

When sick people commit heinous crimes, many people's instincts are to lock them up and throw away the key. The fact that people have cut short other people's lives or scarred them forever seems unforgiveable. For the victims and close friends and relatives of victims, it's understandable that they want these people put away for good.

However, as a humanist, I feel that because everyone has only one shot at life, the working assumption should be that everyone can redeem themselves within their lifetime. Thus rehabilitation must be a possible avenue for people, no matter the crime. We can only value and redeem the living, we can't do anything about the dead.

Either option seems impossible to be taken in their totality. Obviously, true remorse is a key here, but then, we can never be sure. Recidivism among criminals always seems to be higher than it should be even when we expect that they can only be released once rehabilitated and showing remorse.

Thoughts?

99Percent

I think that there are many ways to redeem yourself while locked up.

Sure, many people lock up criminals out of feelings of revenge. But the practical reason is so that we can have a better sense of security.

emphryio

Until whoever starts investigating in great detail the entire history of each person who commits a crime and truly understand exactly why they committed the crime, they can be no meaningful rehabilation.

This means that currently all justice systems are only meant to punish/get revenge.

A better society would accomplish some meaningful rehabilitation but, I personally think there must always be punishment because I can't imagine a society so perfect that such a deterrent wasn't needed.

By the way I don't think revenge is quite the right word for it.

echidna

As 99 says, in addition to punishment and rehabilitation, incarceration also serves to protect the public and further also to act as a deterrent to others.

With these 4 often conflicting purposes, it’s usually necessary to judge each case on its merits & the perfect balancing act is never possible.

Queen of Swords

I've heard that the death penalty is not a good deterrent. Is incarceration a good deterrent?

Bree

Not if you're in my city. The jail has digital cable and high-speed Internet access - hell, they have more TV channels than I do (damn those inmates, getting HBO for free)!

Gringo

If all we have is this one shot in life, that is all the more reason to execute those who take a human life. I think the vitims' families must be considered in all this too. If all we do is love murdererd and give them a bunch of self-help bull$hit, then victims' families ought to go monkey shine on the perpetrators to get that eye for an eye justice. Heck, why not if all they were going to get was some counselling.

But then again, we have laws and punishments to avoid vigilante justice; this is why the law must provide the means of actually punishing murderers and what not, and not just trying to nurture and coddle them out of their present state of cruelty. Otherwise, any deterrant would disappear. Avengers would feel justified in finding suitable punishments against their loved one's attackers.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Gringo ]</p>

Celsus

Hi all,

Thanks for your responses so far. I thought I should clear up a few things. Firstly, I'm not implying anywhere that incarceration may not be necessary, but rather that for those convicted of serious crimes where they often have no possibility of parole, what is a rational defense or critique of this system. In the UK here, we've just seen the death of Myra Hindley, who was a monster without doubt, but there was a battle about whether or not to release her, prior to her death, and which now remains unresolved.

Firstly, freedom is a universal human right, and therefore, part of forgiveness or rehabilitation is the idea of restoring people to freedom. So to rephrase my question, is there a crime so great that people can never be released into society again?

99% wrote:
But the practical reason is so that we can have a better sense of security.

Of course. But does is our sense of security so precious that some convicts must never be let free?

Emphryio wrote:
Until whoever starts investigating in great detail the entire history of each person who commits a crime and truly understand exactly why they committed the crime, they can be no meaningful rehabilation.

During the investigation of a crime, most of this is argued at length by trial lawyers if they are any good, both in determining motives and mitigation.

Echidna wrote:
With these 4 often conflicting purposes, it’s usually necessary to judge each case on its merits & the perfect balancing act is never possible.

So in principle, do you think that we should always start with the assumption that no matter the crime, a criminal must have a chance for rehabilitation?

Queen of Swords wrote:
I've heard that the death penalty is not a good deterrent. Is incarceration a good deterrent?

I'm not sure of the exact figure, but recidivism (reoffending rates) in the US seems to be something like 70-90%, which would appear that incarceration is not a good deterrent. However, there are far too many factors to single out whether the deterrence of incarceration is at work.

Gringo,
I'm not saying there should be no punishment either. What I'm asking is whether punishment must be so thorough that there is no hope for an offender. Obviously, in the US, with the death penalty in some states, this view is often an affirmative. I am trying to get both sides of the picture here, and I'd prefer rational ideas to emotive language.

Joel

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

emphryio

Actual the sentence being death or life in prison doesn't seem like it would be any greater deterrent than say 10, 20 years. So maybe death sentences or life in prison serves no purpose besides revenge/sense of justice.

Gringo

I'm not well equipped for rational thought or discussion, but I'll do my best.
But emotional responses don't altogether seem out of place in a moral question. Beginning with an opinion that everyone has a right to be rehabilitated if possible is no more rational or less emotional than to say when one commits murder, he deserves to die for robbing a person of everything in taking his life, the only life that person will ever have.

If rehabilitaton becomes the main objective of prisons, then violent, repeat offenders who victimize their fellow inmates must be removed somehow. It's total crap to pretend that we're going to rehabilitate people when we let their rights get trampled upon every day, not by the courts or police, but by other inmates. I always hear people bitching about the police or the courts not respecting the rights to criminals. When someone mentions Bubba raping some dude, people shrug it off as just deserts or as something amusing. Bubba, the repeat offender, is reinforced in such a shithole setting by the power thrill of victimizing others. If you are going to rehabilitate the vast majority of prisoners, how will you protect them from such inhumane abuse in the prisons without having mild to extreme punishments for those who won't even allow themselves to be rehabilitated or others to be safe in our maximum security federal or state facilities?