[charlydevo]

Punishment is rehabilitation. If prison sucks bad enough, people will want to stay away from them. We have lots of crimes and low rehabilitation rates because our prisons are too easy. Joe Arpaio (sp) has the right idea.

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by eazy-r

I'm not sure what the average 'vic' has to do with Justice. As you've stated it, it sounds as though you have a particular view of Justice that does not mesh with mine, which is fine. However, by tying that disagreement to what others think, you've lost me. I didn't say they should be planting trees or reading to children, but a fully reformed convict, with 100 percent guarantee of not re-offending, would be doing more good in the community. Unless your concept of Justice, has something to do with a cosmic blance in the universe, I don't see how that is offensive. Please help me understand your position.

Actually, in certain contexts, i do understand what the average 'vic' has to do with Justice, just not the way you've stated. I also have not ruled out punishment of some sort, which would be acceptable, but the question was let the convict out or keep him in, i believe.

You seem to be confused. You said maybe the victim would feel better if they knew the con was helping people. That is absurd. It also has nothing to do with justice, however I mentioned the victim because you threw that in you post. Most victims dont want their offender running free. But justice is not about the way victims feel. So you brought up the business of the victim. I responded and you got lost.

My concept of justice has nothing to do with the cosmic balance in the universe. I believe assholes should be punished Also fuck a fully reformed convict. He comitted a crime, now he needs to pay the consequences. Whether he will ever do it again or not is irrelevant, there are statutes and laws that were violated and you must pay your penance. Tookie Williams was writing childrens books from his cell, and trying to broker peace between warring bloods and crips, and they stuck a needle in his arm. That was justice, whether the victims and or their famlies liked it or not.

[AmericaOverAll]

Originally Posted by nhbbear

I definitely agree with coke v pepsi comparison. One person may respond to rehabilitation, another wont, and then there are those that will exploit the system. Punishment, in my opinion, is the deprivation of freedom, so that aspect is inherent in any sentence. Some criminals are one time offenders, ie, they catch their wife in bed and commit a double murder. May never harm another soul in their life, but committed the most heinous crime and can't be let out. Most crimes are committed by the same criminals. Meaning the person that breaks into your car, also breaks into your house, robs your neighbor, and simply moves on to the next house each night until they are caught or killed. When they are caught, they only get convicted of a small portion of the crimes they committed, thus get very small sentences, reduced to probation and they are back on the street.

Now as for the polotical aspect of crime reduction. The only absolute way to garantee that criminlas do not harm the public is to lock them away. For whatever reason, we have been deemed a civilized society, so we must have the best conditions for our criminals. Thus we have a minimum level of healthcare, food and care. This costs money, and the money comes from taxpayers. Taxpayers bitvh about the taxes and budget cuts are made meaning less persons incarcerated rather a cut in their quality of life costs. I have seen so many cases dropped, or sentences reduced, or "alternative sentancing" given out due to keeping costs down.

Here's my solution: No Escape. The most violent criminals either be put to death or sent to live in a walled in city with minimal costs. Not going to happen, I know. OK, so instead of releasing the criminals to alternative sentencing, at least fucking ask the cops that deal with these guys to tell you if they are real criminals or not. We see so much. The drug dealer that gets convicted with 12 grams of crack is released early due to the non violent nature of his crime. That same drug dealer who deals drugs every day while standing on the corner, who the cops have seen in many barfights, or other violent altercations. I know I seem to harp on the drugdealer thing, but that is because that is all deal with. I know that almost every one of them is violent, but they rarely get caught. Even when they do, they are released early. I arrested a guy in 2005 for shooting a guy in the leg with a gun. He had prior felonies and many misdemeanor drug offenses. He was convicted of malicious wounding(our version of attempted murder) and was released 2 months ago. He has already been rearrested for being whacked out on drugs and again 3 weeks ago for suprise, another shooting. He got into a gun fight with, suprise, another drug dealer who also has multiple arrests for dealing, but this is his first serious violent offense. The other guy did less than 3 years for shhoting someone(another drugdealer) you seeing the pattern here? Anyway, 3 years for shooting someone, how much time will they give for getting caught with some crack. Answer, none because dealing drugs is not a violent offense. Yeah, my ass!

Good point about punishment being inherent in any sentence; and forced rehab is a limiting of freedom, and a punishment in a sense; but rehab wouldnt be needed in the scenario I gave. So what should be done? Just let the guy go? Should there be any kind of limits placed on him because of his act?

Another tough thing is that there is supposed to be equality of justice. How can we say one person should get rehab, while another should get punishment. Or that any difference in sentencing for the same crime is just. Treating criminals differently because of their perceived personalities poses its own problems.

[VikingRage]

I believe it should revolve around punishment. One must pay his dues, eye for an eye and in some cases an eye for a head. Even with a 'super' rehabilitation program I would not allow a cold blooded murder back on the street, taking one innocent life purposely is more then enough to call the firing squad.

To the people who believe in Rehabilitation, imagine if the perpetrator killed just one person. Now just 5 people. Now just a family, Now just 10 kids. Now 100 kids. Now what about 1,000 kids? Where do you draw the line.

For some crimes it should be all or nothing and rehab isn't for murderers, even if they just killed one person purposely.

[Pridelives]

The recidivism rate for crime is usually around 85% in Canada, and we like to dump millions into losers and criminals, it doesn't work.

Sam goes for America though on the other end of the spectrum, it just doesn't prevent crime.

There is no solution, a compitent culling system to find out who is worth rehabing is called for, because almost all criminals are from low income areas with little education, and have been victims themselves.

It's worth helping many but to have a system that helps all is retarded.

[demo3051]

Missing a possible reason for imprisonment. Protection. We lock up those who commit crimes to stop them from harming other people.

[Thunder973]

I guess it depends on the crime

[BadassHo]

for murderers, i dont see it has the state killing them. i see it as the murderer(s) forfeited their rights to their own life when they denied and took that right to life from somebody else.

like these guys should be killed. kill a student b/c you needed i little cash, thats messed up, and they should be put into the ground without hesitation.

FOXNews.com - Autopsy: Slain North Carolina Student Leader Killed by Shotgun Blast - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

[Jackson81]

I just had to write a paper on this for my Criminal Justice class. The American public wants criminals to be punished. They don't give a shit about rehabilitating people.

[eazy-r]

Originally Posted by FoxTrot9R

You seem to be confused. You said maybe the victim would feel better if they knew the con was helping people. That is absurd. It also has nothing to do with justice, however I mentioned the victim because you threw that in you post. Most victims dont want their offender running free. But justice is not about the way victims feel. So you brought up the business of the victim. I responded and you got lost.

My concept of justice has nothing to do with the cosmic balance in the universe. I believe assholes should be punished Also fuck a fully reformed convict. He comitted a crime, now he needs to pay the consequences. Whether he will ever do it again or not is irrelevant, there are statutes and laws that were violated and you must pay your penance. Tookie Williams was writing childrens books from his cell, and trying to broker peace between warring bloods and crips, and they stuck a needle in his arm. That was justice, whether the victims and or their famlies liked it or not.

In order:

- Why is it absurd to think someone may feel good knowing someone else has done good?

-As you have mentioned, I only said it was possible a victim would feel better if the con was helping people, not necessary. I was not stating an empirical fact about cons and victims.

- What is Justice if not the general consequence? Is it a state of the world (and thus consequentialism), is it pre-categorized (and thus Deontological), is it a consentual agreement (and thus contractarian) or is it some other descriptive? I'm sure you understand my confusion.

- You say your concept of justice does not involve a cosmic balance, and i believe you. What is your concept of justice though? you say assholes should be punished, but i wonder why? You offer nothing in the form of argumentation. If it is not for the collective good, which it may not be, what is it? Perhaps Kantian? Such an opinion must surely be backed up by sound argumentation, i anxiously await your response.

- you seem to conflate normative versus descriptive claims about humanity. Even if such conflation is purposeful, for philosophical reasons, a justification is warranted.

Please respond in a manner that is reasonable and without ad hominem attacks, otherwise, i will not respond.

p.s. ad hominem attacks on my lack of response will not be adequate bait.

edit: Just to clarify, within your conflation of normative vs descriptive claims, you have begged the question. By saying that there are statutes ( a legal documentation) that forbids certain acts, and then asserting therefore that certain acts are wrong because they are illegal, you are doing nothing argumentation wise. You need to define what Justice is before you can make those claims, otherwise, you are merely promoting the status quo. You have committed a fallacy. I am not saying that you are wrong in your sentiment, but you have framed the debate in an unintelligible form.