I refer to a Bill O'Reilly question posed on his show just now. He asked an attorney whether we should have the duty/burden of rehabilitating sex offenders. I think the question also dealt with other criminals who commit violent acts because the attorney answered in regards to the sex crimes and to violent acts. Her answer was interesting: "I think society derserves to not have violent criminals on the streets, if treatment works, this would take care of that." Bill said: " I think 25 to life pretty much cleans up the streets, don't ya think?" She said: "giggles, yes, it is a start, but..." Then my wife called me for something and I missed the rest. So my question is: (topic specific to violent criminals who pose a great harm to society, not your average pot smoker). Do we owe a duty to the criminals or is the duty owed to society to fix them? If the duty is owed to the criminals, and not society, then explain your answer. If the duty is owed to society, then is society truly benefited from having these guys behind bars forever. It consumes a great deal of taxpayer dollars. If it costs society less money to rehabilitate them, then is this not the better choice. Of course, how does one truly measure "rehabilitated?" Thoughts?