Poll: Should prison serve as punishment, or should it be used for rehabilitation instead?

[BreakfastMan]

So, I am taking an intro to sociology class (because I like that type of stuff, and I need the social science credits), and we recently started talking about crime and deviance. One of the topics mentioned was whether the prison should serve as punishment, or should it be used to rehabilitate the prisoners. So I was curious: what does the Escapist community think? Should prison serve as punishment or rehabilitation?

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

A punishment, rehabilitation will do nothing, if someone is a natural born killer/thief, they will continue to do it, you can't change personalities and belief.

I personally support torture for criminals.

 

[Mr. Google]

I know what rehabilitation is but what do you mean by it in this instance? I had to put i dont know as an answer due to lack of explanation.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Depends on the crime I guess. Most people know what there doing, but there is that minority that are a wee-bit bonkers.

 

[0986875533423]

Rehabilitation, provided it works. Punishment might seem like the quicker, more easily understood option, but surely a far better choice is to make it so the offender is less likely to come back? The prisons are crowded enough as it is.

 

[[.redacted]]

Prison costs a lot of money, and a lot of time.
I also don't believe that the system is fair, if someone can kill someone and still get to live their life.

Execution and mutilation on the other hand...

 

[0986875533423]

A punishment, rehabilitation will do nothing, if someone is a natural born killer/thief, they will continue to do it, you can't change personalities and belief.

True, but you can change the conditions those personalities and beliefs work to. Imagine, for instance, a person who has a skewed view of the job market and deems themself incompatible with it, turning to crime to support them. Surely raising awareness of prosperous opportunities in work for these people would help them integrate with society.

That is, if the authorities were actually any good at rehabilitation. Which we know they aren't.

 

[Gigano]

It should probably feature several forms of institutions, depending on length of sentence and type of crime.

More somewhat "open" institutions for shorter sentences, first time offenders, non-violent types of crimes etc. which focus on rehabilitating them through education, stable environments, psychological evaluation, help for abuse of stimulants etc.

Traditional stereotypical types of prison for the more hardcore offenders, those with long sentences who are repeat offenders and violent threats. The focus should be on keeping those away from society, once the rehabilitation process have been tried and failed for their first offences.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you have the choice of either, why can't it be both?

There's no point not rehabilitating people if you are putting them back on the streets, and there's no point not punishing people who have committed a crime.

 

[Jark212]

Punishment for the serious criminals (Murderers, Rapists, Child Molesters, serious domestic violence, gang related crimes). But for less serious crimes (drug charges, theft, minor domestic violence/assault (like two drunk idiots fighting), and misdemeanors) should get some hardcore involuntary rehab...

I think that it should vary from case to case, but I think this system could in theory work...

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

A punishment, rehabilitation will do nothing, if someone is a natural born killer/thief, they will continue to do it, you can't change personalities and belief.

True, but you can change the conditions those personalities and beliefs work to. Imagine, for instance, a person who has a skewed view of the job market and deems themself incompatible with it, turning to crime to support them. Surely raising awareness of prosperous opportunities in work for these people would help them integrate with society.

That is, if the authorities were actually any good at rehabilitation. Which we know they aren't.

I can understand in that aspect, but how often does one think, "Work is hard. I'm going to steal things." or even better, "Work is hard, I'm going to kill that guy for his wallet."

In both cases, something is wrong with them, they either don't want to work(a plague upon society) or crazy (hard to fix).

Punishment would work for the lazy, crazed individuals need rehabilitation in OTHER facilities.

And I agree that the 'rehabilitation' system is broken and inefficient.

DEATH TO ALL CRIMINALS I SAY

 

[Bon_Clay]

Depends on the person and the crime, I'm pretty sure a large amount of people could benefit from a second chance and get their act together. But repeat offenders and dangerous people who clearly are not going to get better should just be punished.

 

[0986875533423]

A punishment, rehabilitation will do nothing, if someone is a natural born killer/thief, they will continue to do it, you can't change personalities and belief.

True, but you can change the conditions those personalities and beliefs work to. Imagine, for instance, a person who has a skewed view of the job market and deems themself incompatible with it, turning to crime to support them. Surely raising awareness of prosperous opportunities in work for these people would help them integrate with society.

That is, if the authorities were actually any good at rehabilitation. Which we know they aren't.

I can understand in that aspect, but how often does one think, "Work is hard. I'm going to steal things." or even better, "Work is hard, I'm going to kill that guy for his wallet."

DEATH TO ALL CRIMINALS I SAY

Stop that. Now you're just trolling. Any argument on a slowly-developing aspect of psychology can be rendered ridiculous by collapsing it into a model of spontaneuity. If you aren't prepared to accept that an aspect of personality is something a long time and many causes in the making, I think we're done here.

And DEATH TO ALL CRIMINALS? Really? Surely you can do better.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

It really depends. I think it should serve as a deterrent, but also rehabilitation for offenders who have a hope for it and can turn their lives around.
That being said, some people will never change and for them prison should serve, above all else, to keep them away from the rest of us.

 

[Kae]

I believe that everyone can change, and that everyone has some good inside, so correctional above Justice/Punishment, but many people think I'm just naive(probably I am but who cares)

 

[Bloodstain]

It should primarily be a resocializational purpose...or, if that is impossible, to keep dangerous people away.
But I guess for many people, it's just punishment.

 

[BoredDragon]

I say it depends on the crime, some light should be rehabilitated and something more series should be prison

 

[Rekrul]

In the UK, Tories tried "tough on crime", didn't work, Labour campaigned on "tough on crime, tough on the causes on the crime" but weren't willing to pay towards the latter, so it didn't work. Personally I don't think prison truly works as either a punishment or as rehabilation, its main cause is to remove people from society.