Does society have the burden to rehabilitate criminals?

[Yurt]

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?

 

[Annie]

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?

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.

 

[JayW]

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.

 

[JayW]

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.

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.

 

[Yurt]

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.

Ok. I would agree. What then? Different rehab? Or just keep them in prison?

 

[Annie]

Ok. I would agree. What then? Different rehab? Or just keep them in prison?

As for the non-violent in prisons, yeah try rehab, better yet, education. Check for learning disabilities.

For the violent, keep them locked up.

 

[pegwinn]

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.

 

[NATO AIR]

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.

 

[pegwinn]

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.

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.

 

[JayW]

First thing's first, we need to stop imprisioning nonviolent drug users.

Amen.

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

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

I've got to concur with NATO on this one too. Lock up the violent offenders - and get rid of cable TV and XBox in prison while you're at it. Give them a library and a weight room.
As for drug offenders... I am still of the opinion that MJ be legalized, that drug dealers be locked up for a long freakin' time, but individual drug users face some sort of combination of prison and rehab.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

for violent crimes, has it not been reported over and over and over again that these people that are let out will repeat another violent crime?

If thats the case, why are we paying for that crap? Do them, and society, a huge favor and terminate their lives.

 

[William Joyce]

The American prison population is huge. The "non-violent" drug offenders are almost totally black and Hispanic. I say "non-violent" in quotes because the term assumes someone with the testosterone to violate drug laws isn't also somehow predisposed to violence. My theory is that the white population likes the drug laws because they provide a non-racial pretext for sweeping thousands of criminally-inclined non-whites off the streets. Difference between me and the lefties who usually push this is, I think it's OK! Maybe not totally honest, though: if you want a society without blacks, be HONEST about it and call for white racial separatism.

As for sex offenders, they're usually white, especially child molesters. I say sterlize them or kill them if they are bad enough. Otherwise, it's a risk you bear.

I'm generally skeptical about rehabbing criminals, because it's usually in the genes. Some can be rehabbed, though, and it is in society's interest, long-term, to at least try.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

for violent crimes, has it not been reported over and over and over again that these people that are let out will repeat another violent crime?

If thats the case, why are we paying for that crap? Do them, and society, a huge favor and terminate their lives.

You've always been my favorite liberal!

 

[5stringJeff]

Maybe not totally honest, though: if you want a society without blacks, be HONEST about it and call for white racial separatism.

Although I loathe your ideas of racial superiority and separatism, I have a serious question for you:

If it's so important for you to live in a racially homogenous society, why not move to a country that is close to 100% white? Ireland and Norway come to mind as two such countries.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

You've always been my favorite liberal!

and you've always been my favorite......what are you again? :cof:

j/k