This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Can murderers or rapists ever be rehabilitated back into society?
So I was having a conversation with a friend who believed that all criminals should be given a second chance even if they were violent murderers or rapists. I instinctively disagreed because society would never accept ex-murderers/rapists and it would put innocent people at risk.
She argued that rehabilitating these criminals and making them repay their debt to society by working and being productive would be better than letting them rot in a cell and using up taxpayers money. And that everyone should be given another chance. This does make sense, providing they really have changed, but I can't seem to bring myself to agree with it.
I think that thieves/burglars or other petty criminals can and should be rehabilitated back into society but not so sure about serious violent criminals.
Your thoughts?
She argued that rehabilitating these criminals and making them repay their debt to society by working and being productive would be better than letting them rot in a cell and using up taxpayers money. And that everyone should be given another chance. This does make sense, providing they really have changed, but I can't seem to bring myself to agree with it.
I think that thieves/burglars or other petty criminals can and should be rehabilitated back into society but not so sure about serious violent criminals.
Your thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SkinnyKat
So I was having a conversation with a friend who believed that all criminals should be given a second chance even if they were violent murderers or rapists. I instinctively disagreed because society would never accept ex-murderers/rapists and it would put innocent people at risk.
She argued that rehabilitating these criminals and making them repay their debt to society by working and being productive would be better than letting them rot in a cell and using up taxpayers money. And that everyone should be given another chance. This does make sense, providing they really have changed, but I can't seem to bring myself to agree with it.
I think that thieves/burglars or other petty criminals can and should be rehabilitated back into society but not so sure about serious violent criminals.
Your thoughts?
She argued that rehabilitating these criminals and making them repay their debt to society by working and being productive would be better than letting them rot in a cell and using up taxpayers money. And that everyone should be given another chance. This does make sense, providing they really have changed, but I can't seem to bring myself to agree with it.
I think that thieves/burglars or other petty criminals can and should be rehabilitated back into society but not so sure about serious violent criminals.
Your thoughts?
She's right.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by chappers-94
What about the risk of re-offending? And should they be given new identities?
The criminals who need new identities is proof that society doesn't accept ex-murderers/rapists. Shouldn't people have a say in whether potentially dangerous people should live amongst them?
Can they? Possibly.
Should they? Absolutely not.
I would rather not take that risk. There are some people who can never be trusted again, and no amount of help or chances will change them. Taxpayers money has to go somewhere, and I'd be happy for it to go where they are no longer a burden on society and putting innocent people at risk.
Should they? Absolutely not.
I would rather not take that risk. There are some people who can never be trusted again, and no amount of help or chances will change them. Taxpayers money has to go somewhere, and I'd be happy for it to go where they are no longer a burden on society and putting innocent people at risk.
I can actually come to terms with the idea of someone that has been convicted of murder being rehabilitated into society, as I'm sure there are many that have. However, what I will never be able to accept, are those pedophiles and rapists that claim they have rehabilitated into reformed characters and are no longer a threat to society. Sorry, but I just don't buy it.
Rapists are very much repeat criminals and you've got to be twisted to do it, I don't think they deserve a second chance or that they are safe o be around. Rape victims (especially children) suffer long lasting mental health problems, I don't think it's fair to them or helpful to their recovery to know they're still out there.
Original post by SkinnyKat
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
Clearly she is correct. Are you not aware of the famous rehabilitated murderer, the actor Leslie Grantham - of EastEnders fame?
Original post by SkinnyKat
What about the risk of re-offending? And should they be given new identities?
The criminals who need new identities is proof that society doesn't accept ex-murderers/rapists. Shouldn't people have a say in whether potentially dangerous people should live amongst them?
The criminals who need new identities is proof that society doesn't accept ex-murderers/rapists. Shouldn't people have a say in whether potentially dangerous people should live amongst them?
society not accepting them just means that we are crap at giving second chances, not that they don't deserve them. personally I don't like the idea of simply writing people off.
Original post by Good bloke
Clearly she is correct. Are you not aware of the famous rehabilitated murderer, the actor Leslie Grantham - of EastEnders fame?
I did not know that! Jesus, and I used to watch EastEnders when he was on it
But there are also murderers who go on to offend again, what about them?
In Leslie's case, Wiki said it there was a fight between him and the other dude so he didn't set out to be a murderer, it was more manslaughter (even though he got convicted of murder).
Even if they can why should they be? I'm not saying they should be killed/tortured, but permanent removal from society is the safest option.
Original post by SkinnyKat
So I was having a conversation with a friend who believed that all criminals should be given a second chance even if they were violent murderers or rapists. I instinctively disagreed because society would never accept ex-murderers/rapists and it would put innocent people at risk.
She argued that rehabilitating these criminals and making them repay their debt to society by working and being productive would be better than letting them rot in a cell and using up taxpayers money. And that everyone should be given another chance. This does make sense, providing they really have changed, but I can't seem to bring myself to agree with it.
I think that thieves/burglars or other petty criminals can and should be rehabilitated back into society but not so sure about serious violent criminals.
Your thoughts?
She argued that rehabilitating these criminals and making them repay their debt to society by working and being productive would be better than letting them rot in a cell and using up taxpayers money. And that everyone should be given another chance. This does make sense, providing they really have changed, but I can't seem to bring myself to agree with it.
I think that thieves/burglars or other petty criminals can and should be rehabilitated back into society but not so sure about serious violent criminals.
Your thoughts?
I partially agree with your friend. Particularly in the case of murderers as the term is very broad - I think there may be many who are able to rejoin society. Perhaps not all of them fully - as they may need to be supervised, depending on their risk.
For more sick/twisted individuals, I believe they should be rehabilitated, but not necessarily back into society. I'm not sure there is a niche within public society for some individuals. I don't think that necessarily means they should just be completely given up on though. Better to give (within the realms of cost effectiveness) them rehabilitation to live some kind of productive, fulfilling and moral life, away from their temptations/darker urges. If this means some criminals can't leave secure facilities, but can be given something rewarding and useful to do within them, some kind of life - I think that would be humane and utilitarian.
I think this is a major problem within society. Many offenders come out of jail and wish to be productive in society but are never given the chance. I think it's silly of you to say you would give second chances to petty offenders and not those who received long sentences such as murderers and rapists. This is because data has been analysed and it has been suggested due to clear evidence that actually those who receive under 2 year sentences (or petty offenders) are most likely to re offend and the majority of them do! Murderers have served their time and punishment and they should be given a chance like everyone else. After all they are still human and without giving them chance in society having served their time, you are leading them to live a life of struggle which in turn will not benefit society. As for rapists, I think their sentences should be identical to murderers and should be extended to life sentences for the majority and they should only be allowed out of jail when parole officers deem suitable.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by SkinnyKat
What about the risk of re-offending? And should they be given new identities?
The criminals who need new identities is proof that society doesn't accept ex-murderers/rapists. Shouldn't people have a say in whether potentially dangerous people should live amongst them?
The criminals who need new identities is proof that society doesn't accept ex-murderers/rapists. Shouldn't people have a say in whether potentially dangerous people should live amongst them?
Look up places like Norway,the maximum prison sentence is 21 years and it's re-offending rate is 1/2 that of over here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by anon2345
I think this is a major problem within society. Many offenders come out of jail and wish to be productive in society but are never given the chance. I think it's silly of you to say you would give second chances to petty offenders and not those who received long sentences such as murderers and rapists. This is because data has been analysed and it has been suggested due to clear evidence that actually those who receive under 2 year sentences (or petty offenders) are most likely to re offend and the majority of them do! Murderers have served their time and punishment and they should be given a chance like everyone else. After all they are still human and without giving them chance in society having served their time, you are leading them to live a life of struggle which in turn will not benefit society. As for rapists, I think their sentences should be identical to murderers and should be extended to life sentences for the majority and they should only be allowed out of jail when parole officers deem suitable.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
But there's a big difference between shoplifting and murder.
Original post by Good bloke
Clearly she is correct. Are you not aware of the famous rehabilitated murderer, the actor Leslie Grantham - of EastEnders fame?
And for many rehabilitated murderer, how many are out not rehabilitated? Is it a risk worth taking?
What about a difference between a husband who interrupts his wife's rapist and kills him and a guy who is a psychopath and kills for the pleasure of it?
Original post by lucaf
society not accepting them just means that we are crap at giving second chances, not that they don't deserve them. personally I don't like the idea of simply writing people off.
Is there a cut-off point for second chances? How serious of a crime does a someone need to commit before we can write them off?
What about say, Joseph Fritzl?
Original post by Hippokrates
But there's a big difference between shoplifting and murder.
A higher percentage of shoplifters reoffend than murders. Would you rather someone who made a mistake and has had to live with it and serve a long sentence or would you prefer a shop lifter who shows no remorse and continues to live a criminal lifestyle?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Depends on the individual and the nature of the crime. If the individual has been convicted for manslaughter for accidentally killing an intruder on their home, say, or someone who was responsible for death by dangerous driving could be rehabilitated into society.
Psychopathic serial killers, rapists and paedophiles pose a huge risk to society, as we cannot guarantee that they've been truly 'changed'. People should have the opportunity to be forgiven, but to some, our forgiveness is worth nil.
Psychopathic serial killers, rapists and paedophiles pose a huge risk to society, as we cannot guarantee that they've been truly 'changed'. People should have the opportunity to be forgiven, but to some, our forgiveness is worth nil.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
