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

[rubinigosa]

Well depending on the type of crime and numbers of time said crime as been committed I think it would be okay if it changed from rehabilitation to punishment.For example if a person commit a "light" crime (like:Stealing) the prison would be used for rehabilitation purpose.But if that person would have committed a "harder" crime (like:Murder) then the prison should also serve as punishment.But I think it is important to use the "right" kind of punishment and by that I mean stuff like small things for example you are not allowed to be outside...that kind of punishment it may sound like a weak punishment but after a certain amount of time that will be a strong psychological punishment.

 

[lettucethesallad]

Punishment. Actions have consequences. Or better yet, labour camps. Put them to unpleasant work.

 

[coolkirb]

I voted punishment. I'll explain why. When I hit another kid at school and my mum was informed, she didn't sit me down and explain to me what I did was wrong. What she did was punish me, she told me that hitting is wrong and took away some of my favourite toys. I've never hit another person since. Even bullies who have taunted me constantly. I think it's called positive reinforcement where you do something right and someone gives you a treat so you keep on doing it. Well this is the opposite. If I was not shown that my actions have consequences then I would keep on doing bad things. Every action has a reaction.

Though I see your point I have had a poliece officer come to my Law class and describe prison and it does not sound like a nice place as you call it and is not as easy as you may thing it is. Though your prisons may be different
I believe that prison is too soft, it doesn't actually punish anyone. If the prisoners are not being punished then they will never learn that what they did was wrong. They need to be shown the error of their ways. If you all you do is say to them 'What you've done is wrong' and that is the extent of their punishment then they won't feel like anything negative has happened from them commiting a crime, and they will not see why they shouldn't commit the crime again.

 

[WiwuX]

I don't see why one should exclude the other. Obviously no one enjoys being in prison, it's not fun, you stay in confined areas, have limited access to recreation and eat crappy food. I don't see however, why on earth you shouldn't also take the opportunity to try and rehabilitate them by, say, teaching them a trade or whatever.

A lot of the people who say that it is a punishment seem to also tacitly admit that it is also a form of rehabilitation. Positive reinforcement and forced labour are both methods of just that.

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.

You believe that a criminal cannot control their behaviour, and yet they should be punished for it? A reasonable argument if you think that it isn't controllable is that criminals should be isolated from society, i.e. killed or imprisoned.
For torture you could say that it would prevent others from committing crimes, but since you don't think it is a choice that is made, even that is senseless.

Torturing someone for something when they could not have acted differently is morally bankrupt.


On a side-note you clearly know very little about psychology, and should probably stop acting as if you know what you are talking about.

'If you molest a child, you shouldn't be allowed to move on with your life, as they may never move on with theirs'.

So if the child suddenly suffers amnesia, the molester should be let out again?

 

[BlastedTheWorm]

Shouldn't it be both?

 

[A Pious Cultist]

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.

Trolling, you are doing it right.

 

[manaman]

I personally support torture for criminals.

Yeah! Cause that will fix all social issues. Especially the one where minorities are overrepresented in prison populations around the world when you consider how much of a percentage of the crime they contribute to.

A lot of crime is a social problem, people are not necessary born evil. Rehabilitation can work with some portion of the population. So basically I believe the is no reason prison cannot be for both. I say keep the prison population working, help those at less risk learn trades. Maybe give them a little aid to take online classes - provided they keep passing them that is.

Allow those that don't want to better themselves to stay stuck away in prison.

Maybe I'm just a little naive, but I still believe in giving people a second chance. I know that without a second chance I wouldn't be where I am today.

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

I think it should be some of both. Prison is supposed to be hell on earth. I think prisons sometimes are just too cushy. Here in the U.S. 70-80% of crimes are repeat offenses. This tells me criminals aren't afraid of going to jail. But at the same time, we need to try to rehabilitate as well, or they will just turn back to crime once they get out. If they have no chance to become part of normal society, they just fall back into old ways and go right back to prison. Now obviously some are beyond any hope of redemption. But those few shouldn't mean we give up on all of them.

 

[FoolKiller]

I selected other as I believe both should occur. I think you should be imprisoned as a punishment as you did something wrong. However, if you do not do anything to teach and alter that person's views and actions then when they are released, they will more than likely reoffend, which is rather unfair to their new victim.

 

[old account]

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

It is both... In order for you to be considered a candidate for, or any form of, rehabilitation, you must first have done something wrong or taboo; therefore rehabilitation 'is' considered a punishment and is the reason for the new age prison facilities and the treatment of inmates.
Due to humanitarian ethics, prisoners are to go through classes and activities to reform themselves, so when they are released back into 'society', they can become another contributing member. If the system works or not, I'm not sure. Majority of people released from prison do end up returning with in the next five years (I believe that statistic is right, but please don't quote me incase I'm wrong), so I am sure there are always room for improvement.

In other words, the prison system, at least in the United States, is considered both a place where one is sent to serve time for punishment due to the crime he has committed and where that person is to be rehabilitated so he may be released back into society.

But this is my own opinion of my judicial system from my own studies -shrug-

 

[Xanian]

A bit of classical conditioning always goes down well right?

Recidivism says no.

I can't speak for other countries...but in America prison systems lead to more recidivism over a long enough time frame. The biggest problem is that we don't really allow a lot of amenities and comforts, because every little work out yard, dinner, and television is looked at as a reward, rather than a punishment. We want to stick a person in a gray box for 5 years and then have the audacity to expect them to pop out "fine" or "having learned their lesson." Well, if we don't show a better way to do something and we leave them to more or less mentally atrophy...we shouldn't expect them to pop out "fine." We shouldn't even expect them to pop out functional.

I could make a lot of points here...but to save us all time, I'm all for reeducation and rehabilitation. Give them new logic and knowledge to work with. Otherwise there isn't much point to doing this.

 

[coolkirb]

Just so you know
-Their is no relationship between harshers prison sentences and lower crime rates, i.e. tough on crime is not a deterance
-Prisons are not a nice place as people seem to think, I had a poliece officer come to my Law class and she described her job at the prison she works in, it is not a nice place
-The primary things that increase your odds of commiting a crime are age, gender, and economic status, i.e. poor young men are most likey to commit crimes, not wealthy old women

 

[DisturbiaWolf13]

Rehabilitation. Nobody is born bad, that's ridiculous. The desire to hurt others stems from being hurt, We can see that much. If I punched someone in the face their gut reaction would probably be to punch me back or otherwise hurt me. The fact that many people support the death penalty is just more evidence for this.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

I find the idea of rehabilitation in prison pretty insulting to the victim, as they are trying to get the offender out of jail.

Punishment, all the way.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

What victim?

 

[Anaklusmos]

Though I see your point I have had a poliece officer come to my Law class and describe prison and it does not sound like a nice place as you call it and is not as easy as you may thing it is. Though your prisons may be different

I'm not saying Prison is easy, but I don't think it's harsh enough. Like for one instance, a man said that the internet is a basic human right, not a luxury a basic human right, and so he got the internet in his prison cell, and he used the internet to contact the family of the person he killed so he could boast about what he did. You might say thats one incident, but then what about how some prisoners get a television in their cell, sometimes they can get a games console. Prison should not be a time for enjoyment or a holiday. It's about paying your debt to society for what you did.

 

[Xisin]

Rehabilitation doesn't work when you isolate persons from the society you're trying to integrate them back into.

Punishing people in prisons just makes them mistrust and resent society especially when they're innocent.

Better to rehabilitate the criminals that didn't commit violent crimes within society and just kill those of them whom did and will habitually continue to do so.

You might argue that it is uncivilized to kill criminals but it's better to kill a criminal than let them revisite their crimes upon society at large time and time again.

The government killing people (or torturing as some mentioned) is pointless for so many reasons. From a completely logical standpoint, it costs more money to kill someone through the justice system. It also grants the government the ability to kill in a situation where no life is being threatened. Not to mention that a small amount of those on death row are innocent.

Torture leads to even more problems. Every person has a breaking point. When that point is reached everything will come pouring out to stop the pain. There is no way to tell though, if the information is correct or if the captive is just saying anything to stop the torture.

From a moral stand point: The death penalty creates a paradox. If a person believes that another person deserves to be killed for murder, and one innocent on death row is killed, then that person has killed and deserves to die.

I'm not even against killing, it is completely natural; I'm against calling it anything but premeditated murder. No one is in danger, and the ones do the killing are aware of what they are doing...call it what it is.

OT - Rehabilitation is a hard thing to force. Change of personality, as far as I know can only happen two ways. The first from an inner source, like saying I'm going to be less angry. This way is extremely hard, and almost never works. The other way is from an outside source; such as a young women being raped by her father. This method brings about a forced and drastic change of personality. The government is not legally able to do either of these things, thus rehab is largely ineffective.

On the other hand punishment, in this case, is an odd thing. Punishment is normally used as a catalyst to change. For example, a child that throws toys may be spanked to teach that child not to throw things. But if you have no intentions of letting a prisoner out, no change can occur. Therefore the punishment isn't for the person being punished, but for the person doing the punishment.

So I guess, I think both are useless. I'd rather find a way to know exactly what went on during a crime and what led the culprit to making that decision. Then we could take appropriate action and hopefully prevent the same mistakes.

...I'll start frolicking in my dream world now...

 

[Risingblade]

Punishment it's what murderers and rapist deserve.

 

[titankore]

To put this in a kind of perspective
In the United States 82% of prison inmates are highschool dropouts.
It costs $132,000 dollars a year to house and care for an individual inmate.
For the same money that inmate could have been placed in ritzy private schools from kindergarten to prep school with enough leftover for 2yrs of college tuition or a bitchin car.

I think rehabilitation would be cheaper and more effective than punishment. Also that we should invest more in education for obvious reasons.

all statistics derived from the documentary "Waiting for Superman" and other sources

 

[Bobbity]

Personally I think it's a bit of everything. It's a threat to hang over people's heads so that they don't commit crimes, it's to punish them (constructively, not vindictively) which also leads to rehabilitation. That's my take on it, anyway.