Rehabilitation

[Puppy]

Originally Posted by Euronymous

Of course it comes down to money! It wont be the first time you've heard on the news that judges are to hand out alternative to jail because the prisons are too full. Why can't they build enough? Because the prison budget can't stretch even further than it already does without eating into other services.

OR ... it could be because reoffending rates are so high, because there has been no proper rehabilitation, and due to lack of rehabilitation people are re-offending due to lack of oppurtunity?

Perhaps with better rehailitation re-offending rates wouldn't be quite so high.

By your reasoning the american penal system should cost pennies due to thier prefernce for capital punishment, but I'm sure that thier prisons (including death row) cost match if not outsrip ours.

Please feel free to look for figures to prove me wrong, or yourself right.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Euronymous

Of course it comes down to money! It wont be the first time you've heard on the news that judges are to hand out alternative to jail because the prisons are too full. Why can't they build enough? Because the prison budget can't stretch even further than it already does without eating into other services.

What's that got to do with anything?

[Ghostsuit]

Originally Posted by Dario

No, you've made it pretty clear that you think that practically any sentence other than a death sentence amounts to 'letting them off'. In any case, what I said before still stands-- the length of the sentence served should be judged in proportion to what the circumstances resulting in the murder were. Simply distributing the exact same sentence to everyone because they took someone's life misses the point entirely. It ignores any other complicating factors in the case- the mindset/situation that the criminal was in at the time, and yes, their capability to reform themselves being two of those in particular.
Merely appropriating a sentence based solely on the fact that a murder took place is far too simplistic, and lacks any kind of appreciation of how problematic a situation may be, and the grey areas involved therein. It's ridiculous.

I totally agree with this but it has made me think that perhaps sentences shouldn't be a certain time. Why should we let someone out after 10 years if they arn't rehabilitated? Shouldn't we be keeping them in until we consider them fit to release back into society?

Originally Posted by bikuki

I can't believe that in 58 posts in and noone's pointed out the difference between so-called 'cushy' sentences and rehabilitation. Someone could be in prison for 5 years ('cusy' by your reasoning) and not have a moment of 'rehabilitation'. Unless you're calling it 'cushy' and 'to the end of life'... Maybe I'm confused.

I'm with Les on this one - call me a bleeding heart liberal but I think more money and resources should be put into actively trying to rehabilitate offenders rather than just shoving them in an institution full of oppertunities to learn new 'skills' from their new innmate 'friends', and forgetting about them for a set length of time. Reoffending rates are so high not just because the terms are actually allowing people to get out before they're 80, but also because prison is a perfect place to make new alliances and gain skills and encouragement from exactly the wrong people. Concentrating on making prison not only somewhere you really don't want to end up, but also not a hotbed for criminal activity, is far more constructive and beneficial for society and the individual than just shooting them or locking them up until they're dead.

Again I agree with this we should improve the rehabilitation rather than the prison criminal training schools we "apparently" seem to have.

Then again it's not really simple to answer how do you prevent people learning from more hardened criminals when all they will associate with in jail are criminals for the majority of the time.

[Euronymous]

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Criminal cases should be assessed on the basis of the circumstances under which the crime took place, not what the latest statistics on the average lifespan are.

Because depending on the victims age, they have lost 60+ years of life, and yet the criminal would be lucky to lose a third of that! How can that be justice?

To be fair, I'm not surprised that the point of that comment was lost on you.

Well rather than try to sound smart, why don't you explain it? Theres no need to act all high and mighty.

I totally agree with this but it has made me think that perhaps sentences shouldn't be a certain time. Why should we let someone out after 10 years if they arn't rehabilitated? Shouldn't we be keeping them in until we consider them fit to release back into society?

How do you know if someone is truly rehabilitated though? Is it worth the risk, with re-offending rates so high?

OR ... it could be because reoffending rates are so high, because there has been no proper rehabilitation, and due to lack of rehabilitation people are re-offending due to lack of oppurtunity?

Perhaps with better rehailitation re-offending rates wouldn't be quite so high.

I think that probably true, but also that it's more influenced by money.

What's that got to do with anything?

Read the message before it to see

[bikuki]

Originally Posted by Euronymous

How do you know if someone is truly rehabilitated though? Is it worth the risk, with re-offending rates so high?

You either failed to read my post or missed the point of it entirely. Re-offedning rate are so high because of the nature of the penal system. Altering it would, theoretically, greatly reduce re-offending rates and thus rendering your point moot.

[I'm Your God Now]

They tried to make me go to rehab once.

I said no, no, no.






If that's already been done,. fuck off.

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by Euronymous

Because depending on the victims age, they have lost 60+ years of life, and yet the criminal would be lucky to lose a third of that! How can that be justice?

So if you murder someone who's terminally ill and only has 6 months to live, you get let out in 6 months, yes?

[Puppy]

Originally Posted by Semprini

So if you murder someone who's terminally ill and only has 6 months to live, you get let out in 6 months, yes?

Actually you wouldn't even get sent to jail, because palliative care for the terminally ill costs money, so the murderers have actually saved us financially by euthanizing the ill person. Do you see?

Get on board Semp, its ALL about the money

[Puppy]

Originally Posted by Euronymous

I think that probably true, but also that it's more influenced by money.

By the way I took the liberty of looking for figures for you since you obviously couldn't be arsed

"The cost, mostly born by state prison systems, is also continuing to soar. The study says that the 50 states are now spending almost $50bn (£25bn) annually to house prison inmates, often more than they are devoting to higher education. They have seen a 127 per cent increase in spending on prisons since 1987."

Please if you can prove our system here costs much more, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong....

[TSR]

america has more money to spend though, remember. and even though they have capital punishment, they still spend a lot on appeals/etc. it usually works out more expensive to kill than it does to throw away the key, yet they keep CP as an option for the worst crimes

Originally Posted by Puppy

Actually you wouldn't even get sent to jail, because palliative care for the terminally ill costs money, so the murderers have actually saved us financially by euthanizing the ill person. Do you see?

not if they euthanise an Einstein

Get on board Semp, its ALL about the money

not about the money - about the economy:

1) there's currently unemployment - law-abiding citezens can't get jobs. a waiter kills somebody who doesn't tip him (for example). waiter gets shot. law-abiding citezen gets job. unemployment falls. the economy benifits

2) there's a population/labour shortage. zero unemployment (worldwide). waiter kills someone who doesn't tip him. waiter gets sent to jail and put through rehabilitation. waiter comes out of prison ready to work again, with better anger management skills and better waiter (or other) skills

my personal preference is a form of #2 (doesn't matter about the zero unemployment bit). though i still think pre-meditated murder (or the bloodbath mentioned by Forbes) should be dealt with much more harshly than it is. 15 years (assuming good behavior) for that? should be life. litterally. that 5 years off for pleading guilty is a joke too - he had no choice - that is purely about the money

[Ghostsuit]

Originally Posted by Euronymous

How do you know if someone is truly rehabilitated though? Is it worth the risk, with re-offending rates so high?

What came first the chicken or the egg? Currently rehabilitation isn't working so that would have to change then the re-offending rates would fall.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Euronymous

Because depending on the victims age, they have lost 60+ years of life, and yet the criminal would be lucky to lose a third of that! How can that be justice?

Well it is justice. I suggest yourself, like most people who advocate stupidity on this scale viz the penal system, massively underestimate the effects of long term imprisonment on the human psyche.

Originally Posted by Ghostsuit

What came first the chicken or the egg? Currently rehabilitation isn't working so that would have to change then the re-offending rates would fall.

Everyone seems to be obsessed with arguements about punishment versus rehabilition but you could have a reoffending rate of zero (unlikely if included in that reoffending rate are folk in prison for non-payment of debts, drug related offences and such) with perfect rehabilitation and you wouldn't have addressed the crime problem one iota.

The social conditions need changed that cause people to offend in the first place.

[thetruemayhem]

Originally Posted by Ghostsuit

It's pretty obvious I'm not serious about sticking people on a island, if I was I'd make it a crappy island and not a huge one anyway. Australia was a shoddy move ..

Sorry, maybe a smiley or two would have helped you see that I, too, was having a joke.

t.

[Ghostsuit]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Everyone seems to be obsessed with arguements about punishment versus rehabilition but you could have a reoffending rate of zero (unlikely if included in that reoffending rate are folk in prison for non-payment of debts, drug related offences and such) with perfect rehabilitation and you wouldn't have addressed the crime problem one iota.

The social conditions need changed that cause people to offend in the first place.

True but I think were focusing on it since the original question was wither Rehabilitation was worth while. I don't know about the social condition reducing it to zero but it would help alot, still maybe it wouldn't after all why does one person in a certain situation comit crime while someone else in the same social situation not?

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Ghostsuit

True but I think were focusing on it since the original question was wither Rehabilitation was worth while. I don't know about the social condition reducing it to zero but it would help alot, still maybe it wouldn't after all why does one person in a certain situation comit crime while someone else in the same social situation not?

Well the glib and simple answer to that is they aren't in the exact same social situation.