Turn on thread page Beta

Should Criminals be rehabilitated? watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    If money wasn't an issue, do you believe that criminals should be rehabilitated. Whether that includes treatment for the mentally ill (psychopaths etc) and other employable methods.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keromedic)
    If money wasn't an issue, do you believe that criminals should be rehabilitated. Whether that includes treatment for the mentally ill (psychopaths etc) and other employable methods.
    Of course. Rehabilitative systems are far better at preventing crime than punitive ones. Surely that's all that really matters?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by keromedic)
    If money wasn't an issue, do you believe that criminals should be rehabilitated. Whether that includes treatment for the mentally ill (psychopaths etc) and other employable methods.
    Yes, absolutely.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Where it's likely to work, yes. But rehabilitation of criminals should never take priority over the safety of the public.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Where it's likely to work, yes. But rehabilitation of criminals should never take priority over the safety of the public.
    Hmm, would you then argue that the use of prison is to keep the public safe rather than rehabilitate or deter criminals? So what's the point in wasting our time & money with prisons? Would you be an advocate of bringing back the death penalty?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Myer)
    Hmm, would you then argue that the use of prison is to keep the public safe rather than rehabilitate or deter criminals? So what's the point in wasting our time & money with prisons? Would you be an advocate of bringing back the death penalty?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The problem with the death penalty is that innocent people have been executed in the past. Also, I don't really like the idea of any state having the power to extinguish someone's life.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Myer)
    Hmm, would you then argue that the use of prison is to keep the public safe rather than rehabilitate or deter criminals? So what's the point in wasting our time & money with prisons? Would you be an advocate of bringing back the death penalty?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If rehabilitation was all that mattered then it would be cheaper to place the criminal under house arrest but make them attend rehabilitation classes of some kind. If public safety was all that mattered then it would be more efficient and more effective to execute the criminal and forget the entire matter.

    However, as a country we're civilized enough to have an aversion to the latter but realistic enough to know that the former is rarely going to work. Prison is a place where the rehabilitation process can be supervised and enforced, and until it's complete it's not healthy to allow the criminal back into wider society. And I mean complete, not "making good progress" or whatever it is that parole boards usually accept. If it turns out that full rehabilitation is impossible and the prisoner can never be released then so be it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, the main long-term purpose of prisons should be rehabilitation of offenders. However, I do think that the current methods used are inadequate to achieve such goals. After the 2011 riots, they introduced the offenders to the victims of their arson, to provoke a response and to encourage community rehabilitation (as anyone who's done the UKCAT mocks can tell you ). I think Britain (and other Western countries) need to adopt this more flexible approach to aiding prisoners instead of the traditional in-prison work methods. They are new, rough ideas, but I think they have the potential to work much better than a more closed-off system.

    Clearly, if you're going to eventually try to re-integrate an offender into a working society, they need to have some contact with that society instead of being shut away. If there's no attempt to push them to helping the community whilst they're serving time, how can you ever expect them to do that when they're released?

    Obviously, offenders of more severe crimes (e.g. murder) would require different processing, for the safety of the public, yet they still deserve a chance at complete re-integration into society.

    I am also completely opposed to the death penalty, as I believe that any human life is important and shouldn't be taken away needlessly.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    If a criminal feels remorse for his actions and wants the help, then yes.
    Otherwise let them rot.
    Most minor criminals do come out of prison rehabilitated, but you can't take any chance with serial killers.

    Justice should still be the most important thing.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by keromedic)
    If money wasn't an issue, do you believe that criminals should be rehabilitated. Whether that includes treatment for the mentally ill (psychopaths etc) and other employable methods.
    Certain 'crimes' are a function of the society they take place in. Generate a society of haves and have-nots, for example, and you'll find the have-nots breaking the laws that exist to maintain the status quo for the benefit of the haves.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I have always preferred rehabilitation over incarceration. Rehabilitation gives people another chance and helps to set them on the right path again.

    Incarceration merely takes people out of the world, locks them away from real life and keep them secluded in an artificial environment. They are told when to wake up, eat, exercise, sleep. They are completely separated from the opposite sex. They mix with other criminals, often the worse criminals act as a bad influence upon the lesser criminals. When these prisoners leave prison, they lose the structure and no longer have someone to tell them what to do and when to do it and feel lost. They are confronted with the opposite sex who they have been separated with for so long that they are almost like another species. And worst of all, they are often psychologically affected by their experience in prison and come out as worse criminals than when they went in. Thus we see these people are often unable to fit back into ordinary life and soon enter back into the prison system. That to me is more expensive and detrimental for society than rehabilitation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I have always preferred rehabilitation over incarceration. Rehabilitation gives people another chance and helps to set them on the right path again.

    Incarceration merely takes people out of the world, locks them away from real life and keep them secluded in an artificial environment. They are told when to wake up, eat, exercise, sleep. They are completely separated from the opposite sex. They mix with other criminals, often the worse criminals act as a bad influence upon the lesser criminals. When these prisoners leave prison, they lose the structure and no longer have someone to tell them what to do and when to do it and feel lost. They are confronted with the opposite sex who they have been separated with for so long that they are almost like another species. And worst of all, they are often psychologically affected by their experience in prison and come out as worse criminals than when they went in. Thus we see these people are often unable to fit back into ordinary life and soon enter back into the prison system. That to me is more expensive and detrimental for society than rehabilitation.
    I would give you all the rep in the world for this, but it turns out I'm a rep whore.....
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the crime. For some crimes, they had their chance I don't see why they should get another. For others, I like the 3 strikes law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Depends on the crime. For some crimes, they had their chance I don't see why they should get another. For others, I like the 3 strikes law.
    So you'd rather "let them rot" as another poster said? Even though they're still human beings? That just seems cruel to me
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I do. I don't see the point in "keeping someone criminal" if they can turn their lives around with a bit of help. What's the point in that, either for them or for society?

    Of course, it won't always be possible, but in think in certain circumstances, we should try.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ceryni)
    So you'd rather "let them rot" as another poster said? Even though they're still human beings? That just seems cruel to me
    Yes. Don't do the crime if you can't take the consequences. Especially not 3 crimes. I believe in giving everyone a chance, but if you blow your chance, that's it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I feel that they should be, especially if they have a mental problem that can be eased or even made a little bit better.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    Yes. Don't do the crime if you can't take the consequences. Especially not 3 crimes. I believe in giving everyone a chance, but if you blow your chance, that's it.
    You can't simplify all crimes into that though, nor is it really necessary. I simply believe that human beings, irrespective of their actions, are worth more than that, and that we should at least afford prisoners a better chance to re-integrate into the community.

    If you use a 3-strike law, how would you react to someone who genuinely did want to change their behaviour, even if they had committed a more serious crime like murder, further down the line? Is it fair/just to refuse them that chance?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The question is whether rehabilitation, in some cases, conflicts with human rights.

    Electroshock therapy, in the past, could be used an example of this. To use a more relevant example, what about paedophilia? Whilst some paedophiles do act deliberately, some have literally no impulse control and cannot consciously control their decisions.

    Ultimately, it's a crime that is dictated by a mental problem. The only way to rehabilitate this, in my opinion, is chemical castration. Is this an infringement of a person's human rights?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ceryni)
    You can't simplify all crimes into that though, nor is it really necessary. I simply believe that human beings, irrespective of their actions, are worth more than that, and that we should at least afford prisoners a better chance to re-integrate into the community.

    If you use a 3-strike law, how would you react to someone who genuinely did want to change their behaviour, even if they had committed a more serious crime like murder, further down the line? Is it fair/just to refuse them that chance?
    I dunno, you tell me is it fair if down the line the victim doesn't want to be dead anymore?
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.