Which one should we focus on more in our criminal justice system? Basically, which one would serve as a satisfactory/fitting punishment for prisoners?

If we can only focus on one? Retribution.

I personally feel better mentally about rehabilitation. Punishment always strikes me in an odd place; I've had strange experiences myself with "punishment", and it just irks me that certain people have the authority to say what another "deserves" for their perceived wrongdoing. In any case, more often than not, there is some sort of experience(s) that the criminal had early on in life that somehow affected his/her decision to commit the crime, so when I put that into perspective, I think that rehabilitation is the only "fair" thing to do. Whenever something traumatic happens to someone, we're always so nice until they do something "bad" because of it. Punishment is really not always the best deterrent. It works well with children only because they have not yet developed their own set of morals. Criminals obviously have a greatly differing moral code than most, so their code needs to be analyzed and the "bad" thing needs to be changed.

I've read your ramble, now you shall read mine. Don't worry, though, I'll be more to the point.

The justice system needs tweaking, however, if the justice system worked as it should, then those who commit heinous and vile crimes should be punished accordingly. Kill 'em. f**k it.

Moral code? I really hope you aren't referring to America's moral code, because that went out the window when Natives got raped, murdered, and forced to move elsewhere.

No...I was referring to the individual's. That's what I said.

Sorry Charlie, I'm going to have to look the other way on this one. Americans spend too much money keeping inmates locked away for "rehabilitation" instead of "retribution." Over six billion dollars is spent "rehabilitating" criminals.







They deserve a punishment suitable for their crime. Sitting in a jail cell is punishment, but not punishment enough. You have to give people a reason to fear doing crime. A slap on the wrist is not deterrant enough.

Why? What's the point? Isn't that contrary? We spend our time telling our children not to hurt others and that two wrongs don't make a right... where's the f**king sense in that?

Further, haven't you considered the reality of America's social climate? We live in a society that is alienating, isolating, and oppressive towards the poor, the marginalized, the eccentric, and the "strange." Our society breeds crime and enforces repeat offenses. Our society is a poison and the state of our prisons is a mirror.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0B2xDzSgg&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0B2xDzSgg&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0B2xDzSgg&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xJ0B2xDzSgg&feature=related

(There is a good f**king reason that Norway has fewer homicides, in its entire country, each year (about fifty), than the single city of Gary, Indiana.)



There is a much better solution to financial issues surrounding our prison system. Fifty-seven percent of our prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders and we spend (without considering upkeep, prison expenses, or judicial procedures) twelve billion dollars a year waging the "war" on drugs. Legalize drugs, end the Drug War, and you've suddenly saved thirty or so billion dollars a year, as well as reduced crime, reunited families, added to the workforce and the consumer population, and affirmed freedom.

Rehabilitation discourages repeat offenses (it's kind of hard being alive in the grave for years and years, being treated like shit and scum, and them suddenly being thrown out into society again) and could help reduce crime and free up our prisons. It also increases the mental health of our society as a whole - it allows people to regain and maintain respect, live a free life, and contribute to the world.

Look the other way all you want - that's the f**king problem with our society. We refuse to take responsibility for the ills and the poisons we create. Throw them away and put them behind walls, out of sight out of mind. What we need are people to stare the problem down and tackle it head on. f**k your cowardly shit.



Criminals don't think they're going to get caught in the first place, jackass. It doesn't matter what the f**k you do. People don't commit crimes expecting to get caught - thus the severity of their punishment is wholly irrelevant.

Not to mention, you have to consider phenomena such as the exponentially increasing crime rate in Texas in comparison to the shrinking rates in the Midwest. Texas has the largest death row population in the United States. States in the Midwest tend to have the lowest. A bit contrary to your hypothesis, huh jackass?

A bit, I guess. I'll have to rework my hypothesis. Thanks.

REHABILITATION: Jailtime is supposed to be about rehabilitation. What is the point of jailing someone for committing a crime without rehabilitating them? How are they supposed to survive when they get out? How is the victim's family supposed to feel when this criminal finishes his/her sentence or is paroled? Jail is nothing without rehabilitation. I can't say for sure because my family has never been the victim of any crime (knock on wood), but I would prefer to know that someone has been reformed after they've served a jail sentence because retribution is temporary but rehabilitation lasts a lifetime.

Well, if that is the case, why not just get rid of the jail time all together. Jail does not equal rehabilitation. If it were all about rehabilitation we could do it without putting criminals behind bars.

I honestly believe that if we can rehabilitate criminals without putting them in jails, then we should. Jail is a waste of tax dollars: rehabilitate or kill criminals - one or the other. But don't make me pay tax dollars to house a serial killer or repeat sex offender, and when he/she comes out of jail he/she still kills or wants to rape women. That's a clear waste of my money when there are several other ways in which my money could be spent. Theoretically, the point of jail is to make criminals reflect on their misdoings and want to correct that behavior so they do not return to jail because it's a nasty place that takes away your freedoms- jails not do that therefore they [the jails] have no purpose. But that's just what I think.

I think theoretically you're right. But the thing is that jail consists of criminals. Four brick walls and a ten year sentance doesn't chance the fact that you're still a criminal. You came into this doing wrong, and you're put into an environment that is probably 100% more violent than the one that you came from. Like I always say... You can take the boy outta the hood, but you can't take the hood outta the boy.

The only successful rehabilitation stories have been people who underwent very expensive and extensive help.

Some place West of the Mississippi had a new program where each parole had two officers check up on them constantly. Work, shelter, and counseling was set up for them. There was a significant drop in repeat offenders. There was also a significant drop in budget.

I've had personal experience with a child molester. He hasn't been caught and he still owns an afterschool program for children. People like him never change, no matter how much jail time he receives.

Retribution is the way to go, within reason. Having a therapist sit a criminal on a couch and share feelings isn't going to change anything. Having them do productive things in jail won't change anything.

Norway. f**king Norway, you dumb c**t!

^Are we in Norway? No.

So refrain from calling me such an obscene insult and debate like an intelligent person.

The f**k does that have to do with anything? You said treating them like human beings wouldn't change anything - but it does. I proved you wrong and you're going to rebut with "but we're not in Norway?" Are you out of your f**king mind?

Retribution is compounding and confounding the problems our society faces. It doesn't prevent crime, it hurts people, it demeans people, and it makes us all look like moronic barbarians - and, in the end, what isn't making a change is our current system of non-rehabilitation. I was pointing to Norway as a more progressive and more productive alternative. There is a reason Norway doesn't suffer nearly as much crime as we do, and I promise it has, at least in part, to do with the enormously different ways we treat social misfits. We could take a few hints, don't you think?



You want to know what's more insulting than me calling you ugly names? You f**king suggesting that we should swallow the poison and f**king like it! You crazy bitch! Norway, Norway, Norway!

Oh, also, it's more insulting that you didn't follow the rules and couldn't even bring yourself to read a single page of posts. The debate threads take a bit more investment than the lounge.

I did read it. I was stating my opinion. Just because I didn't go, "OMG! HE'S TOTALLY RIGHT! I SHOULD AGREE WITH HIM!" doesn't mean I didn't f**king pay attention. I answered in the frame of America and my own opinions.

I said: retribution within reason. I don't think we should give the death penalty to drug offenders. For murders and other serious crimes, only retribution can work. And I'm not saying hang and quarter them. Whether retribution or rehabilitation, it always happens after the matter; after the crime was committed.

You think the justice system is the only reason why Norway and America has different crime rates? How about our difference in gun laws? Or how about we have a huge rich-poor gap?

I'm sorry for not writing an essay.

I think you're insane bastard who can't maintain a civil demeanor on an online debate for even one post.

We also teach them crime and punishment, consequences of wrongdoing. In the case of rehabilitation, there is no consequence there is no suitable punishment for the crime. How is that justice?

Suitable in the sense that punishment corresponds to the level of the crime.

That said, how do we rehabilitate someone who doesn't want to change? Further, why would tax payers be comfortable with their money benefiting serial killers and rapists...etc.

As for Norway, this isn't my argument, but it has been brought up and I am curious as to how you would refute it. Is the low crime rate in Norway attributed to its humane system or has it always been like that? Where we live has a lot to do with what crimes or the level of crimes that are committed.

Also, http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/02/f...ev_en/main.html. It seems Norwegian prisons have their own problems.

what a long text

This topic is rather broad. Its a little difficult to choose one of the two as a general solution for every crime. Anyone with enough common sense can agree.

Rehabilitation does nothing for people like this...
Click here, bitches

He knew what he did, and was perfectly fine with it. Killing his wife was a damn relief for him. So how would he be rehabilitated?

Well, generally, those who commit the most crimes are those that are poor. Norway treats its poor citizens (not that there are many) quite well, alleviating some of the rage that those citizens may have simply about being poor. Frustration builds up if things aren't going too well financially, which turns to frustration about family because of the finances, and so on and so on, and eventually, all that pent up rage goes into crime. So, no, it's not solely because of the excellent prison system, and of course everything has its flaws, but maybe if our country took a look at some of these countries' (Norway, Iceland, Sweden) systems of government, we could take a hint and come out with better, happier citizens.

You have no idea. Rage is a stretch. Desperation is probably the more appropriate word.

Are you Norwegian or an American? You can't expect the government to restructure their welfare plan around a country that operates differently with the drop of a dime.

Norway? More like NorGAY.

I wish I was Norwegian. I didn't have a choice in where I lived.

I also don't believe I said that the entire system of American government should change, right now, this instant. But, it should change either way. Sitting here doing the same stuff when, obviously, by looking at the many other ways we could be solving specific problems that can be and are being observed as better, is kind of stupid.

It's so easy to say America should change like this or like that, over time, now, whenever, etc. The fact is, America =/= Norway. Norway has a way different climate, way different demographic, and way different upbringings. They're way less culturally diverse and aren't in the world's spotlight. They're not nearly as big as us and not always under criticism. They're not a super power either. There are so many systems that work in different settings for different people.