How does this happen?

CrAz3D · November 11, 2005, 04:17 PM

I don't think Osama is free. He can't move about freely. He can't speak in large public areas. If he is found he will be less free, but he isn't free right now either.

Also, I support corporal punishment of children. I do not support beating, but spanking is fine & dandy with me. I got spanked a FEW times...that's all it took. Maybe if kids got their butt spanked a bit more then the country wouldn't be running all rampant with idiotic children graffiting the walls while shooting up on coke.

Invert · November 11, 2005, 05:48 PM

Quote from: Adron on November 11, 2005, 03:47 PM
Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 02:49 PM
Right, the main reason for all of this is not to rehabilitate someone or to give someone a second chance this whole system is done for our protection everything else is secondary. As human nature we want to eliminate all that is harmful to us, our survival as a stable society is a lot more important than one person being changed and given a second chance.

You are off. If the system is for your protection, the main priority of it is rehabilitation. How is putting someone behind bars for 10 years, then letting them out, still in the mind of robbing, raping and murdering good for your protection? Changing people so they are no longer harmful to you should be your main focus.

Stop talking about rehabilitation unless you can prove it. You are the one that is off, the system is there for protection and the main point of it is not rehabilitation (you would be a fool to believe this) but it's for punishment. The more severe the crime the more severe the punishment, it also works as a deterrent. The jail system removes the criminal from the society while punishing, "rehabilitation" is an option and is not automatic while you are incarcerated.

It's not changing people so they are no longer harmful its scaring people that they are no longer harmful. Here is an analogy: If you speed and get a $500 speeding ticket you are not going to speed next time not because you changed but because you are scared to get another $500 ticket.

Adron · November 11, 2005, 06:00 PM

Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 05:48 PM
Stop talking about rehabilitation unless you can prove it. You are the one that is off, the system is there for protection and the main point of it is not rehabilitation (you would be a fool to believe this) but it's for punishment. The more severe the crime the more severe the punishment, it also works as a deterrent. The jail system removes the criminal from the society while punishing, "rehabilitation" is an option and is not automatic while you are incarcerated.

It's not changing people so they are no longer harmful its scaring people that they are no longer harmful. Here is an analogy: If you speed and get a $500 speeding ticket you are not going to speed next time not because you changed but because you are scared to get another $500 ticket.

Stop talking about punishment and deterrent unless you can prove it. You are quite right that the system works very badly for rehabilitating people. This is why criminals so often stay criminals. The system thus does not successfully protect society. The system as is, is a failure. Rehabilitation is the only path to success.

Invert · November 11, 2005, 06:40 PM

Quote from: Adron on November 11, 2005, 06:00 PM
Quote from: Invert on November 11, 2005, 05:48 PM
Stop talking about rehabilitation unless you can prove it. You are the one that is off, the system is there for protection and the main point of it is not rehabilitation (you would be a fool to believe this) but it's for punishment. The more severe the crime the more severe the punishment, it also works as a deterrent. The jail system removes the criminal from the society while punishing, "rehabilitation" is an option and is not automatic while you are incarcerated.

It's not changing people so they are no longer harmful its scaring people that they are no longer harmful. Here is an analogy: If you speed and get a $500 speeding ticket you are not going to speed next time not because you changed but because you are scared to get another $500 ticket.

Stop talking about punishment and deterrent unless you can prove it. You are quite right that the system works very badly for rehabilitating people. This is why criminals so often stay criminals. The system thus does not successfully protect society. The system as is, is a failure. Rehabilitation is the only path to success.

1st of all how can rehabilitation be a path to success let alone the only path if it is unproven in it's ability to succeed at all?

2nd people serving time in jail are proof of punishment. People not in jail are proof of punishment being a deterrent. The systems works great for what it was designed to do, if you read the history of jail (I'm not going to find you any links it is up to you weather or not you want to stay ignorant on the issue) you would see that penitentiaries were built to hold criminals in punishment and not to rehabilitate them. The system punishes the criminals and deters the would be criminals.

iago · November 11, 2005, 07:23 PM

Then the question becomes, what is the purpose of jails? If people aren't going to be rehabilitated, then what's the point? Instead of putting people in jail, why not kill them all? I mean, jail obviously isn't a deterrant to those people, and they are going to do it again, so why not protect the people they're going to hurt by killing them? I don't see much point in locking them up if nothing will change..

CrAz3D · November 11, 2005, 07:28 PM

Jail is punishment. It should be rehab...but a hardcore kind, not some psych in there. These people should be brainwashed, something like Clockwork Orange...good ideas in that movie

iago · November 12, 2005, 11:27 AM

Why punish somebody if it's not going to change anything?

Ender · November 12, 2005, 12:21 PM

In conclusion, our government sucks, Bush sucks, and the war in Iraq sucks²

EDIT:
Okay, to tie this in with jails... if we weren't wasting so much money on the war in Iraq, we could be cleaning up our nation. For example, we could be spending money on programs that prevent crime and morally rehabilitate criminals.

EDIT#2:
Jails should be stricter in determining who they let out. Perhaps we shouldn't sentence criminals to a set amount of time, but instead fixed intervals at which they will be interviewed in order to determine if they are fit to return to society.

Yegg · November 12, 2005, 12:34 PM

Quote from: Ender on November 12, 2005, 12:21 PM
In conclusion, our government sucks, Bush sucks, and the war in Iraq sucks²

EDIT:
Okay, to tie this in with jails... if we weren't wasting so much money on the war in Iraq, we could be cleaning up our nation. For example, we could be spending money on programs that prevent crime and morally rehabilitate criminals.

EDIT#2:
Jails should be stricter in determining who they let out. Perhaps we shouldn't sentence criminals to a set amount of time, but instead fixed intervals at which they will be interviewed in order to determine if they are fit to return to society.

So I assume that you could do a much better job at such situations if you were in charge?

iago · November 12, 2005, 01:48 PM

Quote from: Ender on November 12, 2005, 12:21 PM
In conclusion, our government sucks, Bush sucks, and the war in Iraq sucks²

EDIT:
Okay, to tie this in with jails... if we weren't wasting so much money on the war in Iraq, we could be cleaning up our nation. For example, we could be spending money on programs that prevent crime and morally rehabilitate criminals.

EDIT#2:
Jails should be stricter in determining who they let out. Perhaps we shouldn't sentence criminals to a set amount of time, but instead fixed intervals at which they will be interviewed in order to determine if they are fit to return to society.

There were plenty of problems before the war.

There are also the same problems (to a smaller extent) in Canada, and we aren't part of the war.

And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back? How do you measure rehabilitation?

Adron · November 12, 2005, 03:04 PM

Quote from: iago on November 12, 2005, 01:48 PM
And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back? How do you measure rehabilitation?

Ah, excellent questions. How you measure rehabilitation will have to depend on what kind of crimes have been committed. A desire to leave crime behind would be a key component though. Nearing the end of the punishment part of a sentence, a convict would have to be given opportunity to plan their return to society - home, work, etc. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that they could actually achieve an acceptable life standard. And monitoring would have to be applied for an amount of time afterwards, to verify that there is no return to crime. Obviously, not everyone would be rehabilitated, but the monitoring would ensure a swift return to prison for those. Rehabilitation could also be adapted to previous failures - if someone returned to crime quickly after last attempt, put in more effort this time.

CrAz3D · November 12, 2005, 07:52 PM

Quote from: Adron on November 12, 2005, 03:04 PM
Quote from: iago on November 12, 2005, 01:48 PM
And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back? How do you measure rehabilitation?

Ah, excellent questions. How you measure rehabilitation will have to depend on what kind of crimes have been committed. A desire to leave crime behind would be a key component though. Nearing the end of the punishment part of a sentence, a convict would have to be given opportunity to plan their return to society - home, work, etc. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that they could actually achieve an acceptable life standard. And monitoring would have to be applied for an amount of time afterwards, to verify that there is no return to crime. Obviously, not everyone would be rehabilitated, but the monitoring would ensure a swift return to prison for those. Rehabilitation could also be adapted to previous failures - if someone returned to crime quickly after last attempt, put in more effort this time.

@ how many chances do you draw the line though?

Invert · November 12, 2005, 08:52 PM

I just want to add something here that no libertarian can argue against.

The only thing that is proven to protect society and stop a criminal from committing any more crime is the death penalty.

We are talking about criminals that were proven unanimously to be harmful to society as a whole by a carefully selected group of unbiased (regarding race or religion) individuals.

Nothing else is as effective financially and in terms of protection of society from those individuals.

But of course not everything was tried. We should consider sending them all to Sweden or Canada and see if that works. Personally I still don't think that would be as effective.

iago · November 12, 2005, 09:59 PM

Quote from: Adron on November 12, 2005, 03:04 PM
Quote from: iago on November 12, 2005, 01:48 PM
And what about con-men who end up in prison? Just because they can appear rehabilitated, they should be allowed back? How do you measure rehabilitation?

Ah, excellent questions. How you measure rehabilitation will have to depend on what kind of crimes have been committed. A desire to leave crime behind would be a key component though. Nearing the end of the punishment part of a sentence, a convict would have to be given opportunity to plan their return to society - home, work, etc. Arrangements would have to be made to ensure that they could actually achieve an acceptable life standard. And monitoring would have to be applied for an amount of time afterwards, to verify that there is no return to crime. Obviously, not everyone would be rehabilitated, but the monitoring would ensure a swift return to prison for those. Rehabilitation could also be adapted to previous failures - if someone returned to crime quickly after last attempt, put in more effort this time.

Although that sounds like a good idea, I don't think it would work. They'd likely try hard to stay straight until they were no longer being watched, then fall again. Especially if the offense is for doing/selling drugs (meth, crack, whatever), since odds are people like that will fall right back into the criminal lifestyle.

The other problem is the cost. Is it really realistic looking after every person released from prison?

Just out of curiosity, how does Sweden deal with this kind of thing? Canada basically has the same broken system as the US, but I'm wondering if other places do things differently.

dxoigmn · November 12, 2005, 10:18 PM

Quote from: Invert on November 12, 2005, 08:52 PM
I just want to add something here that no libertarian can argue against.

The only thing that is proven to protect society and stop a criminal from committing any more crime is the death penalty.

We are talking about criminals that were proven unanimously to be harmful to society as a whole by a carefully selected group of unbiased (regarding race or religion) individuals.

Nothing else is as effective financially and in terms of protection of society from those individuals.

But of course not everything was tried. We should consider sending them all to Sweden or Canada and see if that works. Personally I still don't think that would be as effective.

The Death Penalty is not cost-effective. It is cheaper to keep the person in jail for life without parole than to execute them. Search the forum.