It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.

Post Reply New Topic

Obviously, I got this question (actually, statement) from the Political Compass Test. I thought it would be a really good question for a philosophical discussion, because I had a really difficult time deciding, how I felt about it----and, I thought somebody ELSE might have, as well.

I got stuck on the word "try". I'm thinking it would nearly ALWAYS be a good idea to, at least, TRY to rehabilitate a criminal----and THEN, if it was determined that it was a waste-of-time, discontinue that program for THAT criminal.

How do YOU feel about this issue?

It's probably a waste of time to try to rehabilitate those who genuinely don't want to be rehabilitated and won't change their minds, but it may be hard to tell them apart from other criminals.

What is pretty clear is that they should be sent to something other than a crime school in the first place, or you're only going to help them become impossible to rehabilitate, which, of course, is the way to maximize the profitability of the business.

I'm getting hung up on the word 'some'. I do think it is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some. I mean, there are some people who simply will not benefit from anything like that... serial killers, for example. I think once a serial killer, always a serial killer. *shrugs*

It's a weird question for me. I think rehabilitation is largely pointless and useless except for giving people something to do with their time in lock up... not because it will not work, but because a lot of people have issues with ex cons and will not, for example, hire them for more than minimum wage paying jobs that do not provide enough to live on. I think the whole system needs an overhaul.

I'm somewhere being "maybe" and "agree."

Some criminals themselves admit that they will never be rehabilitated.

I believe most people, even criminals, are capable of redemption, though. And being rehabilitated.

It's an agree from me.

It'd be a strongly agree, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Besides, knowing that something is likely a waste of time isn't necessarily going to stop me trying.

Of course some criminals are beyond help in any form, there should not be people walking around having committed the crimes they have committed. I

...I really think this question is extremely vague . I've only had time to fast-skim the entire line as of right now .

_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

At the risk of infuriating some, rehabilitation should not be the focus of the criminal justice system. Its primary purpose has until recent stupid decades been punishment. Punishment for the sole purpose of deterring those who would consider breaking the law themselves. Rehabilitation should be a secondary objective, if you would even care all that much in the first place. By all means offer some help those who genuinely want to change, but the majority don't want to put in the effort, that's why they choose crime in the first place.

Some people's purpose in life, I'm afraid, is only to be an example to others of what not to do and what not to be.

I think rehabilitation should be the focus, too---especially for younger, less violent criminals.

I also feel that, for most people, their criminal records should expunged after five years of exemplary conduct (they do this in Canada).

It is a poorly worded question, as it conflates questions of ought (What the person believes the criminal justice system should do) and is (what the prospects of inducing a behavioral change among those convicted of a crime actually are).

The currently available research does suggest that a subset of criminals are often more or less incapable of rehabilitation; those showing strong antisocial/psychopathic traits. These also happen to be the most violent individuals in the prison population.

However, these individuals only make up a subset of incarcerated individuals, so different strategies wrt. rehabilitation may be relevant for different inmates:

- Serial killer - Lock 'em up and throw away the key
- Serial marijuana user - Let 'em out and throw away the law

personally, the only reason i see not to outright kill people who commit certain types of crimes are pragmatic concerns. those concerns are more than enough for me to be strictly against the death penalty in practice, but they change nothing about the fact that i do believe that those types of criminals are fundamentally nothing but a burden to society

It is a waste of time to punish most criminals.

I don't believe that the current trend in some parts of the world towards long, harsh prison sentences does any good in terms of reducing crime. If you just want to be vindictive, then punish. If you want to do some good, then rehabilitate.

There is probably a small group of criminals who are just outright bad people, and who will not respond to attempts to rehabilitate them, but we should still try.

We still need something like prisons in order to facilitate rehabilitation, and somewhere very like prison to keep violent, dangerous people in order to protect everyone else.

Most people don't end up in prison because they're bad, they end up there because of unfortunate circumstances, and going there destroys their lives. We need to be much more realistic about crime in order to reduce serial reoffending.

...This questtion came off to me (Even if was not the OP's intent thusly .) like it was meant to dive/lead into " Therefore , let's kill , after torturing first , all criminals ! " or anyway " Let's have even longer mandatory minimums " - Well , kind of . Especially given the OP's last post on this .

_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

I answered disagree. I didn't answer strongly disagree because it depends on the crime/crimes committed.

I fail to see how treating a criminal like s**t in prison is going to make them a better person. Abusive security guards simply perpetuate the cycle of violence. When the prisoner gets out of jail they have all this built up resentment and most of they time they "relapse" (sorry for the euphemism)

Some people need to be kept off the streets but let's say we give a guy 5 years in prison. Since the guy is going to be released to the streets at some point anyway, we might as well try to rehabilitate even though it won't always work.