Anyone interested?

[northernwalker]

I am interested in debating topics of interest on a weekly basis. People may post, invite their friends to post and suggest topics to be discussed as you please. You do not have to be on my friendslist to debate, though I will be happy to add you.

The rules-
1) All posters must be civilized. Obscenity and insult should not take the place of wit.
2) Anonymous posters are not permitted, nor are sockpuppets and trolls.
3) "God wills it" is not a defensible argument. If you are explaining a belief, that is one thing. Trying to shut down debate with this is not permitted.
4) Invoking either Godwin's or Snacky's Laws is only acceptable in discussions of WWII or high school.

First topic- Rehabilitation vs Retribution.

Should prisons focus on rehabilitation or retribution? Should we encourage job training and skill building, or concentrate on punishing offenders?

Comments

[kelsey-lynne1.livejournal.com]

I'm interested. Also, I think zhukora1 would be interested. I'll message her.

Retribution. I don't believe that the rehabilitation system works. Also, people in prison for violent crimes should not have a second chance at life.

[northernwalker]

Would you want to make this a blanket decision- that is, hammer everyone, or would you want a graduated system where minimum security prisoners could earn educational priviliges and those who had committed more serious crimes could not?

[kelsey-lynne1.livejournal.com]

Graduated system. People in prison for non volient crimes could earn priviliges. However, volient crimes or sexual predatores, no second changes. Sorry, you're done. Leave humanity.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

While I believe there *is* a "penance" factor involved -- the whole "pay one's debt to society" thing -- I think the primary job of a correctional system should be to make sure that someone who's committed a crime does not commit a crime *again*. I'm primarily concerned with crimes against other people here; f'r'ex, going 15 mph over the limit on an empty road (except for you and the police car) isn't on my list.

So... if rehabilitation will keep Joe/Jane X from committing crimes in the future, then s/he should get rehabilitative services. I'm sorry to say that it won't work for everyone, and I'm also sorry to say that too often we let the worst become the enemy of the (correctably) bad.

[northernwalker]

So... if rehabilitation will keep Joe/Jane X from committing crimes in the future, then s/he should get rehabilitative services.

This is where I'm at, I think. People who get an education and job training can use them to build a life should be encouraged. However, it's not going to work for everyone.

The genesis for this came from a National Geographic program on gang activity in Utah prisons. A female gang member was interviewed, and during the course of the show she told us that her uncle(who was also an inmate) had founded the gang she had joined. She's been a member since age 11, and at the age of 27 had been in and out of prison for years. she wants to straighten out her life and regain custody of her daughter, but I didn't get the impression she had a lot of life skills. Should her time in prison be used to gain them?

[pedropadrao.livejournal.com]

If she really wants to change, I say give her a chance. Certainly, it looks like her formative years didn't have much in that way. I think, though, that her problems won't be in learning, so much as unlearning the criminal habits that her family drummed into her. Look at it this way: O. Henry was once sent to the pen for embezzling, but he left that path & became a great writer.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

On a completely different note... what is Snacky's Law? I haven't heard of that one.

[northernwalker]

http://www.journalfen.net/userinfo.bml?user=snacky

If you're looking for Snacky's Law, here's how it goes:

Whenever two (or more) groups of people are arguing, anywhere on the web (usenet, mailing lists, message boards, blogs, etc.), inevitably, someone on one side of the argument (regardless of age or gender) will compare the group on the other side to "those bitchy girls who made everyone's life hell in high school."

Additionally: When this happens, if the person who made this comparison is validated with tales of "just how mean the bitchy girls* were to ME in high school," the argument is over, and the side making the comparison has lost.

If however, the other side responds with the EXACT SAME COMPARISON, both sides have lost, and the argument should be declared dead for all eternity.

*popular kids, playground bullies, etc.

It's very popular on Fandom Wank.

WHOO this is long.

[zhukora1.livejournal.com]

Heya! I'm very interested in joining these weekly mini-think-tanks. So I'll be adding you at kelsey_lynne1's recommendation if you'd like to add me back. :)

I think the issue of rehabilitation vs. retribution is a very complex one. Of course we have to take into account restitution for crimes committed, because it sets a very bad, bad, bad precedent for society for people to be able to commit crimes without fear of punishment. That's why they're crimes, yes? But I think it's also important to take into account the individual situation of each perpetrator. It's pretty widely accepted fact that crime tends to be committed more frequently by people who grow up in disadvantaged backgrounds; people who grow up impoverished or without access to good education, health care, careers, and other resources are given a different set of moral parameters from those who are privileged, and have much less vested interest in perpetuating the system that has both created the laws which they may break, and which has placed them in a disadvantaged situation to begin with. While it is of course necessary to make sure people are given proportionate punishment for whatever crimes they have committed, I think it's also necessary to help the perpetrators get out of whatever situation may have prompted to commit the crime in the first place--which is to say, I agree with dr_zrfg in that we should be concerned about preventing recidivism if it can be determined that an individual would benefit from rehabilitative services.

It would probably be best (though expensive? Maybe it could be paid for with the funds that would otherwise be used to house re-committed criminals) to put each perpetrator through some kind of assessment, both psychological, and sociological to determine whether they would be within the target range of each to undergo different types of rehabilitative treatment. Gang members and illiterate kids would be given the tools they needed to get a foot up in the world, people with severe mental illness could be given proper medication and a support system, and those jerk CEOs that steal everybody's money when they should know better will just have to serve their time.

I think it would also be ideal if prisons could work more with halfway houses to help these people re-acclimate to outside society once they're released. One of the biggest problems that causes recidivism is released criminals not knowing how to function in outside society after being in prison for so long, where the rules are different. Thus disoriented and without a reset moral compass, the probability of people committing yet more crimes only goes up.

I should probably also state that violent crimes, including murder, sexual assault, and the like shouldn't be treated exactly like other types of crimes. To me (and I may be wrong here...it all depends on circumstances of course), being willing to severely physically harm, kill, or sexually violate another human being bespeaks an extremely severe psychological disturbance that I'm wary of writing off as easy to fix through rehabilitation. I guess I don't have an ideal solution for that one.

And on the off-topic, anyone ever see that video of the skill-building activities they use for prisoners in the Phillipines.

Re: WHOO this is long.

[northernwalker]

Glad to have you! I just added you, and feel free to invite others.

It would probably be best (though expensive? Maybe it could be paid for with the funds that would otherwise be used to house re-committed criminals) to put each perpetrator through some kind of assessment, both psychological, and sociological to determine whether they would be within the target range of each to undergo different types of rehabilitative treatment. Gang members and illiterate kids would be given the tools they needed to get a foot up in the world, people with severe mental illness could be given proper medication and a support system, and those jerk CEOs that steal everybody's money when they should know better will just have to serve their time.

I'm not sure how workable this would be, but it's an interesting idea. I do feel that some sort of graduated scale would be important, and as you say, getting younger offenders skills so they can get a leg up should be part of that. Kenneth Lay should have ended up doing hard time. He had plenty of options.

think it would also be ideal if prisons could work more with halfway houses to help these people re-acclimate to outside society once they're released. One of the biggest problems that causes recidivism is released criminals not knowing how to function in outside society after being in prison for so long, where the rules are different. Thus disoriented and without a reset moral compass, the probability of people committing yet more crimes only goes up.

I agree with this. By providing healthier choices, people have a better shot at making their lives work.

I should probably also state that violent crimes, including murder, sexual assault, and the like shouldn't be treated exactly like other types of crimes. To me (and I may be wrong here...it all depends on circumstances of course), being willing to severely physically harm, kill, or sexually violate another human being bespeaks an extremely severe psychological disturbance that I'm wary of writing off as easy to fix through rehabilitation. I guess I don't have an ideal solution for that one.

I'd have to generalize here and say that I'd be really leery of trying this as a broad approach for a number of violent offenders. Maybe on a case by case basis, but not all of them.

I'm going to check out that video as soon as I can.

random thoughts

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

It's a complex issue. I think the real purpose of most crime laws is to attempt prevention by discouraging people from committing the crime. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't.

It seems to me that paying someone to attempt to rehabilitate a criminal can be just as cheap as trying to punish them. Now, I think that sometimes rehabilitation and retribution can be all one big package. For instance, in the case of white collar crime, making white collar criminals learn and practice a manufacturing skill would be punishment, but also be a way of teaching many white collar criminals what it means to work for a living. (Yes, I'm prejudiced.)

Prevention comes in many cases where the criminal sees it as punishment-- for instance, laws that say that someone with a domestic-abuse record can't own a gun.

Re: random thoughts

[northernwalker]

It seems to me that paying someone to attempt to rehabilitate a criminal can be just as cheap as trying to punish them. Now, I think that sometimes rehabilitation and retribution can be all one big package. For instance, in the case of white collar crime, making white collar criminals learn and practice a manufacturing skill would be punishment, but also be a way of teaching many white collar criminals what it means to work for a living. (Yes, I'm prejudiced.)

You radical librarian you. ;)

And making that white-collar worker see what the people on the line go through wouldn't hurt, either. Good idea.


Prevention comes in many cases where the criminal sees it as punishment-- for instance, laws that say that someone with a domestic-abuse record can't own a gun.

Molly Ivins once suggested promoting knives over guns for several reasons:
1. The odds of being killed in a drive-by knifing are minimal.
2. Ricochets while cleaning not an issue.
3. We'd all get more exercise chasing down our targets.