Does society have the burden to rehabilitate criminals?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Yurt, May 10, 2005.

  1. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    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?
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I don't think rehab has worked all that well. From what I've read, with sex offenders, not at all to any significant level.
     
  3. JayW
    Offline

    JayW Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    79
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +2
    Well, our government represents us, the people. So it should protect us from violent criminals. Right so far? (maybe not)

    Once a criminal gets out of prison, society will have to deal with him again. So it follows, IMO, that the burden is on our justice system, our legislature, etc. to come up with ways to TRY to rehabilitate criminals. I suppose if they are lifers it matters a bit less.

    I'll leave it at that for now....

    Great topic.
     
  4. JayW
    Offline

    JayW Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    79
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +2
    That's because they haven't been sent to me, yet. Chop-chop.

    No, in all seriousness, I don't think I can even begin to address the issue of a sex offender. I do believe some CAN be rehabilitated, but probably less than 50% IMO. It's just hard to imagine someone raping someone close to me and then being let loose on society again completely cured.
     
  5. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    Ok. I would agree. What then? Different rehab? Or just keep them in prison?
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    As for the non-violent in prisons, yeah try rehab, better yet, education. Check for learning disabilities.

    For the violent, keep them locked up.
     
  7. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Rehab implies that redemption is possible. For sex offences I don't believe redemption is possible therefore no rehab. They should be locked up for life without parole if not killed outright. In the event they are released, they need to be castrated and a gps shackle placed on the body.

    For nonSexual violent felons, I see no obligation to rehab them. I think they should live among the animals until punishment and correction is complete. Recidivism means that they stay for life.

    Harsh I know. It's a character flaw I have learned to live with.
     
  8. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    First thing's first, we need to stop imprisioning nonviolent drug users.

    This only serves to harden troubled people who have a drug problem and should be getting treatment, not hard time that just exposes them to the real criminals, the violent dealers, the rapists, the kidnappers, etc etc.

    There's what a million people in jail now for drug possession or use?

    That's a massive drain on our taxes and social systems.

    So let them out of prison, but the violent ones, keep them in.
     
  9. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    excellent points. I agree with all of them with certain caveats. Basically, nonviolent offenders should be penalized by labor. I posted on this long ago and so won't rehash it. Well Said Nato.
     
  10. JayW
    Offline

    JayW Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    79
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +2
    Amen.

    I think I read today that the entire U.S. Corrections population is 1.5 million. Wouldn't surprise me if 2/3 were in for posession or use.

    Situation is fucked.
     

Share This Page