- David Steele
- Davis, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should criminal sentencing be oriented towards punishment or rehabilitation?
There are basically two lines of thought on what the goal of criminal sentencing (this means after guilt has been proven) should be: justice for the victim, which is usually used to mean punishment for the perpetrator, and rehabilitation for the perpetrator, which means working to make him a functioning member of society. Examples of policies favoring justice for the victim would include the death penalty, as it precludes the possibility of rehabilitation, and life sentences without the possibility of parole, for the same reason. Examples of policies favoring rehabilitation for the perpetrator include in-prison education for inmates, because the aim is to prepare them to find a job on the outside, reducing their dependence on crime and hopefully make them functioning members of society, and parole systems, because they allow for the possibility that if a convict can reform his ways, and has the possibility of functioning well on the outside, he should be released. There are of course, various compromises within those philosophies. One such mixture of philosophies can be seen in the minimum time requirements for parole; which state that inmates granted the possibility of parole must first serve a set number of years out of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. The idea of these minimum time requirements are to provide a deterrent while still allowing for rehabilitation. However critics say that there can be no compromise between these ideas, because if there is any immutable punishment, that contradicts the idea that if the convict is rehabilitated he is released, favoring a deterrent, which has nothing to do with the individual's possibility. So: do you think that these two concepts can exist symbiotically? If so, how? If not, which do you think we should abide by? As a side-note, all my examples are from U.S. law. I would be very interested to hear examples of these concepts from wherever you live.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Also locking people up may be something else, not just punishment. It may protect society from those who are a threat.
Whether we have free will or not, some fear of punishment is a partial deterrent either consciously or unconsciously.
Also, whether we have free will or not, if you put alternative ideas or options in other peoples heads, either conscious or unconscious, if you can change their habits, you may help prevent future crimes.
Assuming you don't lock every convicted criminal for life for every crime, they will get out one day. Why not give rehabilitation a try. Why not try it on a volunteer or compulsory basis and check the data.
In fact, if there is data to show attempts at rehabilitation work, and the benefits outweigh the costs why not give it a go?
John Smith 30+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I would go as far as saying that if the data shows that rehabilitation works better than punishment, it should be done regardless of cost.
John Smith 30+
@Mats below
At the time of the trial it really doesn't matter how the perpetrator became who he is. My point was that a person committing a crime only once does not make that crime and the damage done by it any less serious. When some vandal damages your car for $5000 and then is rehabilitated and never vandalizes anything again, you're still left with a $5000 bill if the vandalism is not forced to pay you. There is more to crime than recidivity statistics: damage is done and has to be compensated for, preferably by the perpetrators, this is why punishment is so much more than primitive revenge.
@David Steele
Seeing prison as compensation may seem hard but the vast majority of punishments are fines or community service, clearly those are about repairing damage. In cases where the perpetrator cannot afford a fine a prison sentence is there to assure that not only wealthier perpetrators are punished. Also, while prison may not deter our one-time passion killer, jailing him may deter others, at the very least it will prevent a wave of killers trying to stay out of jail by claiming they only killed out of passion. At some level the parents of the victim may find compensation in the fact that the killer of their child is forced to have a hard time and think about the consequences of his actions. Lastly, an efficient prison system (which not every country has), and/or the prisoner's reduced income potential after release will redistribute wealth away from the perpetrator to the rest of society.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
If you were raised by the headhunters of the Amazon as a baby, if you saw nothing else, you'd be a headhunter. If you were raised in Nazi Germany where all you see is 'Heil Hitler', you'd be a Nazi. So I think all people are perfectly well adjusted where they're coming from. There's no such thing as good or bad people. You're taught to hate certain people, but where they're coming from, it's normal. If you're brought up in the South, uneducated region, you might become a member of the Ku Klux Klan, you speak with a Southern accent. Where do you get that from? The environment. Where do you get, 'I'm gonna get me a nigger and kick his ass'. You get that from the environment. It's not that people are good or bad. They're raised in an aberrated or twisted environment.
So, the more justice you seek, the more hurt you become because there's no such thing as justice. There is whatever there is out there. That's it... The point is we have to redesign the environment that produces aberrant behaviour. That's the problem. Not putting a person in jail. That's why judges, lawyers, 'freedom of choice': such concepts are dangerous because it gives you mis-information that the person is 'bad', or that person is a 'serial killer'. Serial killers are made, just like soldiers become serial killers with a machine gun. They become killing machines, but nobody looks at them as murderers or assassins because that's 'natural'". So we blame people. We say, 'Well this guy was a Nazi. He tortured Jews.' No, he was brought up to torture Jews.
David Steele
Obey No1kinobe 50+
We have a mix of nature and nurture.
E.g. We have sex drives. For some this leads to rape or pedophilia.
Part of the difficulty in this discussion is you almost need to look case by case.
Agree the environment is important. But there is a genetic component too. Some people are psychopaths. Some people in the same situation make different choices.
But agree part of it it luck.
John Dunbar 10+
chen xin
John Smith 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I agree with the power of recency and impulse issues.
But suggest fear of punishment works for some people with some crimes. I don't cheat on my tax because I don't want to get caught. I even resisted hitting someone because I don't want an assault charge amongst other things.
This might be the minority.
But I suggest there would be more crime if there were no punishments.
I think it should be part of the mix, but probably not the central one.
There are also studies that indicate it is important for there be a cost for people overstepping the mark otherwise they will take unfair advantage.
But agree there is a range of people and situations.
James Zhang 30+
I mean, 40 years from now is such a different world than today. A lot of people hate change, and that much change is almost inhuman to deal with. It can induce a lot of loneliness too because you're living in a world where you may feel like you just don't belong anymore.