Prisons - Punish or Rehabilitate?

[.:KNAS:.]

What, in your mind, should be the purpose of prisons? Should they punish or rehabilitate? I believe that it cant do both, then it will only make things worse by basically giving people a 'free of charge' hotel. Personaly i think they should be there to rehabilitate and not to punish.

 

[amadeus]

Make them labor camps.

 

[.:KNAS:.]

Labor camps as in Nazi labor camps, or labor camps as in how to learn a trade, or sumhin?

 

[Becka]

Don't you know? The real purpose of prisons is to keep victims and people like me from beating murderers and rapists into a bloody pulp.


But in truth, I'd really have to vote "punish". "Rehabilitate" makes it seem like they have a mental disorder, and it that case, they should be treated in an appropriate institution. You can't attribute EVERYTHING evil to mental disorders. Some people are just evil.

 

[.:KNAS:.]

Originally posted by Becka
Don't you know? The real purpose of prisons is to keep victims and people like me from beating murderers and rapists into a bloody pulp.


But in truth, I'd really have to vote "punish". "Rehabilitate" makes it seem like they have a mental disorder, and it that case, they should be treated in an appropriate institution. You can't attribute EVERYTHING evil to mental disorders. Some people are just evil.

True, but you know the punish thing dont work most of the time. Most people in jail are there because poverty led them to say steal a snickers bar, then after stealing the snickers bar, the line between 'good and bad' is a bit more blurred out.
So now he he robs a convenience store(sp?). He gets arrested and goes to jail. A year later he is released. He doesnt have a job, dont know much about being a regular citizen. And who would hire a convicted felon?
So he aint got no money, and no food. So what does he do, does he realize after his stay in prison that its 'wrong' to rob folks? Or does he do the only thing he knows how to do, rob that is? Id bet he`d go rob someone. Now i know this doesnt apply to all criminals, but to most, they do. And BTW, i do feel that rapists should be punished, and some murderers.

 

[Hitro]

It has to be a mixture. Rehabilitation for those crimes like .:KNAS:. mentioned but mere punishment for those who commit crimes like mass murder or rape.

 

[Dralix]

If a person is going to be released from prison, don't you think it's in everyone's best interest that an attempt at rehabilitation is made? I know it's easier not to think about it, but you have to face the fact that except in the most extreme cases, people get out of prison. In those cases, I think a punishment phase followed by a rehabilitation phase is best.

 

[Ohkrana]

If we had summary executions!

There would be no need for prisons or Rehabilitation.

There is only one law for all - Martial Law.

 

[basta72]

Rehabilitation

Even criminals are humans even the worst of criminals. And as humans they deserve to have rehabilitation and then freedom back. Everyone is to gain if the criminals stop commiting crimes after their prison sentences and start working instead. I belive that most criminals can be treated and returned to society as lawfull persons. Those that can´t or doesn´t want to be rehabilitated and are considered to be a danger for others should ofcourse remain behind bars. With enough effort we probably could have a very high rehabilitation percentage.

 

[FredLC]

I really feel that the option “both” should be up there, but in it’s absence, I’ll definitively vote rehabilitation.

You see, the idea of relentless punishment is nothing new. In fact, in ancient eras, people had no sense of proportion. It was like: “Fool? So you stole my apple? Well, now I have ripped off your arms, raped your wife, killed your children and set your house on fire”.

Of course I’m just illustrating, but you can see that line of thinking in countries that to this day applies severe punishments like amputations and whipping.

Anyway, criminality still exists in such countries. Because criminals only commit crimes because they believe that they won’t get catch. If they believed that they would have to pay for it, they wouldn’t do it. So, making them “punishing places” won’t diminish criminality, the same way that making them “rehabilitation places” won’t boost it.

What brings me to my next point. See, criminals are citizens too. And, like other citizens, they deserve society care. The reason why society is entitled to apply penalties is because it’s supposed to be better than the criminals. If it’s just angry and vengeful, it won’t be better. And will be failing its duties.

And this goes to all criminals, even the most dangerous ones. If they can’t be cured, they should be kept isolated for as long as necessary – forever, if it gets to that – but with other finalities than punishing, pure and simple.

I understand the anger society feels with violence. I was victim of violence too, once. Nonetheless, I still think that rehabilitations the way to go. Because, seriously, what good does plain punishment brings? Nothing but the satisfaction of a primal sense of revenge.

Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is to give someone the chance to be a productive citizen again, and, even, try to repair the damage that he/she has made.

Anyway, just my $ 0,02.

 

[CornMaster]

It depends on the personality profile....

And repeat offenders should just be shot.

 

[Greadius]

Rehabilitation sounds nice. The problem is in order to make it effective, it is expensive. Having quality prison schools, in some perverse way, rewards criminals for deviant behavior and makes it tougher for people in similar situations prior to committing a crime to get on equal footing.
Fastest way to get a good education is to commit a quick crime? There are other oppertunities in the real world. Punishment needs to come first. Rehabilition, in terms of the basics of how to conduct oneself in society without breaking the law would be a nice prerequisite to release. However, any sort of rehabilition beyond that is unnecessary and eats away from the resources of non-criminals who want to be abilitated for the first time.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
Labor camps as in Nazi labor camps, or labor camps as in how to learn a trade, or sumhin?

Not so much forced labor as placing the people on an abandoned island and forcing them to develop a basic infastructure, etc.

It's amazing how civil people can become when they don't have the Mom and Pop government to look after them.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Punishment is the proper purpose. Prisons should be harsh labour camps where petty and minor offenders slave away doing back breaking physical work during their long sentences. Work will make them free, as the punishment will be the first part of their rehabilitation.
There will be no serious offenders therein, with all having been shot once in the back of the head after a "streamlined" trial by Evil Tribunal.

 

[Zwelgje]

In my opinion prison serves two purposes.
1 - Punishment, people should be locked away for a while to show that they've done something wrong, something that won't be tolerated and they won't be let of with a slap on the wrist.
2- Education, teach them a job and show them how they can become valued members of society.

After all society isn't better off with huge jails filled with people of whom a big part can be contributing members of society just living their lives not bothering others.

 

[mrog]

Originally posted by Dralix
If a person is going to be released from prison, don't you think it's in everyone's best interest that an attempt at rehabilitation is made? I know it's easier not to think about it, but you have to face the fact that except in the most extreme cases, people get out of prison. In those cases, I think a punishment phase followed by a rehabilitation phase is best.

I agree with this. But I also think that the process of dealing with anti-social behaviour has to start earlier. Young people in danger of becoming offenders should be given a lot of help to get themselves on track before they get themselves into trouble. Those who take the chances given them should be strongly encouraged. On the other hand people who demonstrate that they do not wish to be part of society should be removed from it.

 

[polymath]

So, you've mugged thirty people, engaged in twoc-ing, countless acts of petty vandalism and intimidation and you really like throwing bricks through windows, in short you've made life a misery for everyone in your neighbourhood whilst sticking two fingers up at the law....and when you are caught, someone says "well, you've been a naughty boy, haven't you? You need to be rehabilitated, don't you?". Would you have anything but utter contempt for such a person?
Prisons are for punishment, they are for incarcerating bad people who do not deserve liberty.
Don't get sidetracked into the 'but some people are in for relatively mild things, not bad crimes.' I'm not talking about who deserves to be in jail and for what, I'm talking about 'what prisons are for'. I hope you get the distinction I'm trying to make.
For rehabilitation, make a rehabilitation centre.
Prisons are for punishment, they shouldn't be diluted into some 'day centre for disaffected youth' or some other pc notion.

 

[Rodgers]

I take the view that it's purpose is NEITHER of the options but simply to incapacitate the criminal and stop him doing it again.

A large amount of prisoners are there for petty dishonesty offenses which they repeatedly commit - prison is just a way of stopping them doing it for a while. They wont feel "punished" sufficiently to stop them doing it again (especially if they've been in before) and there's not much hope of rehabilitating the repeat offender either.

I think the criminal justice system here gave up on either idea working a long time ago. They just stick them in jail for a while so they're "out of harms way" for a bit.

 

[knowltok2]

I feel that both is the only appropriate answer. The punishment has to be severe enough that people do not want to go to prison for the education, free cable, whatever. It needs to drive home the point that they have done wrong, and are being made to suffer because of it.

However prison also has to rehabilitate as well. Eductaion and job skills are all well and good, but we appear to need more.

My solution is two-fold. Take away all the crap like cable TV, weight rooms, etc. Teach skills and give rewards for learning the skills. Then after the person is released they should be placed in special companies that recieve government support to continue the rehabilitation process. These companies would employ specially trained supervisors who knew how to deal with the ex-cons. The ex-cons would then progress through a period of a year or two learning how to cope with a job and extra freedom. At that time they would be ready to go out into the world and the normal business community can feel a lot more secure in hiring them because they have been 'tested' so to speak as to their reliability.

This is of course for the minor to intermediate crimes and some homicides. It is not for murderers or sexual criminals. It would also be for first time inmates only(I don't say offenders, because I wouldn't hold it against them too much if all they got the first time was community service, or parole, etc.).

 

[Ozz]

Rehabilitate???

Just put their switch in the 'off' position.
They won't reoffend. If you got to lock
somebody up for more than 2 years
you may as well off them and spent
the money on somebody with some
potential.