Because those first few adult years, I feel, are most important. A human being between the ages of around 16 to around age 25 (generally) sees the world in black and white - that's just the way we're programmed. If we can "re-educate" a person at that age and teach them that what they think is 'the only way' is not necessarily true, then there is where the opportunity for rehabilitation is.
I am in agreement with many WF members that by and large, being a good parent is the most important factor in keeping your kids (boys + girls both) out of the criminal life. Having said this....it's like wearing a seat belt. You can buckle up + still get in a head on with a semi and DIAF - this would be the kid with loving parents who still chooses crime. Sometimes bad luck just happens. But this is no reason to not wear seatbelts at all....because statistically they save lives + injury. Now that we are a few generations into the "kids with no dads" lifestyle, it's obvious that it's chock-full of FAIL. There are exceptions, but not being involved in your kid's lives is setting them up to repeat the cycle. Of course these "fuck + run" shitbags must be desirable mates, because so many women seem to love 'em to death! Rarely is being a hot lover and a great dad compatible I suppose....I'm not a woman so I can't tell you. I take the "you reap what you sow" approach. I hope my daughter has good judgement + doesn't start cranking out kids with no dad.
It's true....now that my daughter is dating, I hope she stays away from the cocky, smooth, studly type forever. If she gets serious, I hope it's with some uber-nerd Eugene Levy looking + acting guy.
Now sixteen through twenty-five are the formative years? Sorry but I can't buy into the idea that we've no responsibility for ourselves until we've lived a quarter century. Again, one's upbringing may help explain why a crime was committed but it does not excuse committing a crime.
Obviously..... We dig his body up and flog it too. (That was a really stupid question from you. You can't lash a dead man. Obviously you big dolt.) Oh and UA sure some single parents might raise a child fine but there are millions that don't and one only has to look around the country to see that.
You're misunderstanding me. I don't mean to say that these kids be "excused". Only that instead of putting them in the prisons that now exist, place them into a 'different kind of prison'. One that focuses on rehabilitation, job skills and life skills. If they don't rehabilitate, and end up back in jail, well, then they can go to the modern day prisons. I just feel like we could, at least, try to give them a chance.
If it's their first offense, then yes, they deserve the opportunity. I used "kids" in this senerio as usually, most 'career criminals' have the first trip to prison at this time.
What makes you think they aren't willing? If they choose later to return to their old lifestyle, and end up prison-bound again, then send 'em to prison.
Rehabilitation does not work and is not the duty of the criminal justice system. Punishment does and is.
Fool. Hey Volpone, I've got this great piece of land down in Florida I think you'll like. I'll sell it to you, cheap. Give me a call.
You talkin' to me? Because I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'll allow that maybe there has been some breakthrough in the past 20 years, but when I had a criminal justice course in college the professor said "Rehabilitation does not work." The textbook said rehabilitation does not work. My brother worked in the county jail for a couple months but left because he couldn't handle seeing the same people brought in for the same stuff over and over again. And Zombie and Elwood are both saying rehabilitation does not work so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that rehabilitation does not work. And if you are arguing that it is the responsibility of the criminal justice system, I'm going to have to ask you to show me one place where it says that. The other half of my assertion is that punishment works. If the punishment for robbing a bank is 15 years in prison, 10 with good behavior and the convict serves 15 years in prison--or gets let out after 10 if he's been good, then the allotted punishment for the crime has been implemented. The two caveats are whether the punishment is appropriate for the offense and when you've got a criminal justice system that lets offenders out because of overcrowding. In the first example, the system is still working and performing within requirements--they just need to reassess the sentencing standards. In the second example I would agree that the system is failing. But that still has fuck-all to do with rehabilitation. And as far as repeat offenders, who do their time, get out and come right back? That's what three strike laws are for.
If "punishment" worked, our prisons wouldn't be busting at the seams with repeat offenders. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of why punishment doesn't work.
Define "work." They sure as hell aren't victimizing innocents while they're locked up. And the worse they do on the outside, the longer their stay behind bars, until finally they don't get to leave again. The only problem is how long it takes society to accept that final outcome.
The "punishment" doesn't work because prison is tolerable. I'm not saying it's a country club, but it could be harsher IMO.
Criminals used to be thrown into windowless dungeons, but that didn't keep them from committing the same crimes again once they were out.
Nope. By the time the shit head is arrested its too late. You'd have to start with kids today that are 4 or so and hammer them with the education while at the same time silencing their existing parents. Yeah aint gonna happen. So wash, rinse, repeat and keep the prisons in business. Um maybe its the failure rate of existing rehab programs. No they arent willing. If they were they wouldnt go back to their old environments and habits like they do. You want punishment to work and be rehabilitative, then listen to Heinlein. Make punishment both cruel and unusual, but not sadistic. Make the price of committing a crime high enough that the punishment actually discourages the crime its self but not so high that it becomes meaningless and out of proportion.
How about a reduction in crime and the money spent on corrective systems compared to socieities which use rehabilitation as their goal?
I think career criminals (ones that have no desire or motivation to change their ways) should be set free.....to be hunted down by a team of assasins. Or perhaps used as sniper targets for military training. Basically have a fake trial where the "paperwork" is messed up, and they are set free. Unbeknownst to the criminal, people are tracking them and will (within a month or so) kill them right in the middle of the grocery store (for example). Then a mysterious quasi-government team swoops in and takes the body away as onlookers gasp. A sign saying "You're welcome" is placed on the blood + brain stained floor.
So, if you (general you, i.e. the government) know they are going to commit a crime in advance, then you (the government) are as responsible for the crime as the criminal himself. Why isn't it going to happen? What existing rehab programs? half-assed shit the government compromised on because of stingy conservatives? pfft. that's not rehab. Rehab's never been given a chance - leastwise, not in this country.
Locking up the fucking criminals accomplishes that satisfactorily. You can't "fix" entire cultures that glorify predatory criminal behavior. You can only take steps to limit their ability to harm you. My social conscience can deal with writing off half the population, if that's what it takes. There are too many worthy people trying to make their way to waste time trying to salvage wastes of skin who piss away every opportunity available to them because being a thug is "cooler."
Because the type of criminals in societies that use rehabilitation are the type that have enough brains to actually benefit from it. So I present The Pepsi Challenge: send American criminals to the prisons of the countries that rehabilitate. Sent foreign criminals from countries that rehabilitate to our American corrective systems. It would be like an "exchange student" program. Any bets that the American criminals have the foreign prison staff pissing their pants while in the fetal position?
So...your position is that if someone is in prison for 20 years...they really aren't in prison? You're still not understanding this. The purpose of putting someone into jail isn't to rehabilitate them. And it isn't to make them not do the same crime again. It is to punish them for the crime they committed. Unless your position is that current prisons are so soft that losing your freedom isn't really punishment, you simply cannot say that punishment doesn't work. It doesn't work as a deterrence. But it isn't supposed to be a deterrence. That's why it isn't called "deterrence". It is called punishment because its purpose is to punish, not deter. I don't know how I can put it any more simply than that.
