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

Recommended Videos

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,831
0
0
Take the prisons where low-risk, minor offending inmates are kept (in the UK this would mainly be ones in residential areas, like Armley Prison, or Winson Green Prison), and convert them to rehabilitation centres. They would house those inmates and focus on rehabilitating them, mainly drug dealers, muggers, drunk drivers, that sort of thing. Ones who have committed relatively minor crimes and still have a chance to be rehabilitated. That could potentially create more jobs, too, and would be a decent shake-up to the current prison system. Allow things like TV and books and such, albeit with strict regulation, and only as rewards for good behaviour (as opposed to early release, which I'm personally against in ALL cases).

Then the serious offenders, people like murderers and rapists and paedophiles (the ones who actually act on their urges, that is), should be kept in prisons and mental facilities, like they are now, and those prisons should be made to act as punishment centres. Revert the prisons to the days of the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, albeit without the hanging (though I do support capital punishment, that's a debate for another place and time). And in those cases, they won't be let out early, offenders will be in there for years and years at a time (and life should mean life, not just thirty-odd years like it does at the moment in the UK), and so they should spend that entire time living a life of misery and suffering just as they caused their victims.

That's basically my entire view on the matter. The entire UK justice system needs shaking from the ground up, and a massive overhaul is needed urgently...
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
The first and most important function for a prison is to segregate criminals from main stream society. That is the most important part of all - to keep them from committing any more crimes. After that, the function of a prison depends on the prisoner and what crime they committed. Relatively petty criminals (thieves, public drunks and such) should be rehabilitated as their crimes do not warrant a very harsh sentence. Even some murderers deserve a CHANCE at rehabilitation.

But for serial killers, unrepentant rapists or gang leaders or the just plain crazy folks, make them stay in jail until they die, both as a punishment and as a way to prevent them from committing any more crimes.
 

coolkirb

New member
Jan 28, 2011
429
0
0
Anaklusmos said:
coolkirb said:
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.
well human rights are indinable, and I can only speak for Canada but your right internet is not a basic human right (or at least one that can be denide in the case of prisoners under the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms), and as for televison and game consols if one has good behaviour it should not be unreasonable to give them something to acknowledge they are behaving in a good way. In what was described to me prisoners get 1hour of exercise time outside (I was told they mostly stand in their groups and cliques and at most walk around), then they spend time inside their living area which conects to all their cells, 2 people share a cell, sometimes 3 if its crouded, the prison bull (leader, big guy, head criminal whatever you want to call the position) as she said basically rules the joint he/she decides what goes on, what they watch for their hour of TV time, who uses the phones, their like the kingpin and the cop even said she and others have to usually work with the bull to get things done so that the prisoners dont riot. They have no cutlery as they would sharpen it into weapons (this also includes cups so their drinks come in bags) Beatings are frequent and happen if you do something the bull does not approve, the weaker white collar criminals often volinter to spend their days working in the kitchen cleaning then stay in the living area. so the prison I heard of was not a nice place, I realize that it wasnt realy working toward rehibilation but she did say their are a lot of usual people who you get to know because they come in and out, so if anything I think we still do not attempt rehabilitaion as much as we should but then again this is only one example I heard of out of the many prisons of the world.
 

Stromko

New member
Apr 22, 2008
9
0
0
The problem with prisons is that there isn't enough control. Prisoners will always find opportunities to assault other prisoners, and that gives gangs more power than the guards. Prisoners come to depend on their gang to keep them safe, and when they get out, they not only owe favors to that criminal enterprise, it's also their main support network.

I think that's why recidivism is such a huge problem. It's not that jail isn't unpleasant enough, it's that they have no choice but to live in the criminal world that prison life has introduced them to.

If I could make a perfect prison, there would be no physical contact between prisoners and no unobserved communication between prisoners. They can talk privately to their therapists and their lawyers, sure, but there's no benefit and a lot of risk to society when prisoners are talking shop with other crooks.

I would support the death penalty for some crimes if we could be 100% certain that someone was guilty, but that's simply impossible right now. A lot of innocent people have been put to death by the justice system and still are being killed, so I can't support it.
 

blind_dead_mcjones

New member
Oct 16, 2010
473
0
0
where is the 'approach on a case by case basis' option, if someone pulls a martin bryant then by all means lock them up and throw away the key but otherwise some people can be rehabilitated, sure its tough, but its high time society stopped taking the quick and easy fix all the damn time

that said the idea of prison being a punishment that will deter people is a fallacy, after all crimes are commited for one of three reasons 1: crime of passion (something that coccurs in the heat of the moment) 2: premeditated (they know what they're doing is wrong and think they will get away with it) and 3: mental instability

RamirezDoEverything said:
I personally support torture for criminals.
well aren't you just spectacular, seriously. ever heard of turning the other cheek?
 

AwesomeExpress

Packages Delivered: 84 / 1900
Feb 4, 2010
13,692
0
0
We should just have Death Race 2000 and get it over with. Just like gladiators.

Also, it's both.
 

Dimensional Vortex

New member
Nov 14, 2010
694
0
0
It really depends on the crime of course, you're not going to rehabilitate Charlie Manson any time soon, but if it was some kid who got caught trying to make a name for himself by drug running or something than I think rehabilitation is good.

I think punishment is easier and more efficient, to rehabilitate you would need doctors and psychologists whose skills could be used else where. So I think there should be a mixture between punishment and rehabilitation, but I know it won't change any time soon.
The Stonker said:
Niagro said:
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...
The process of legal costs of sending a man to death is higher then keeping him for life in a prison.
I believe that we should use prisoners as slaves.
Doesn't that violate one of the American amendments or something? Even if your country is England, Australia, Scotland, Ireland and one of those other sorts of places, if your government allowed Slavery you could see America getting angry over it.
 

Yoshisummons

New member
Aug 10, 2010
191
0
0
Well if you read your text book(sociology now the essentials 2nd edition) it'd discuss the astonishing ammount of people in jail and the effects and likely hood that when people get out they will merely commit another crime just to get back in.
 

UnkeptBiscuit

New member
Jun 25, 2009
363
0
0
Philosophically speaking, prison serves as a way to keep everyone equal. The laws passed by our governments serve as a way to create an equal playing field for the game of life (ooh, metaphor). If a law-abiding citizen wants a car, they save up and buy it, or take a loan. This is difficult to do. If a criminal decides to steal a car he wants for less effort, he's basically saying that he's above the rules of the law and thus better than everyone else. Prison serves as a way to bring that criminal back down. For this reason it should be a punishment.
 

RamirezDoEverything

New member
Jan 31, 2010
1,167
0
0
well I can see I'm well liked in this thread.

Simple example, then I will take the berating of the opposition, and then leave.

You were a toddler, if you broke something, or hit another sibling, you were spanked. That is a punishment. You realized,"Maybe I shouldn't do that."

You have now committed murder, you will endure your punishment in the form of torture/prison time, and then realize, "Maybe I shouldn't do that."

Besides the prison system now is a joke, neither side of this argument actually happens. except for the whole.. violence and sexual abuse by other inmates...
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
Punishment, rehabilitation, and slave labor I say. We've got a working system, we just need to change what people get thrown in there for.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
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?
WARNING: this post may contain actual information and a disturbing lack of trendy internet nihilism. Read ahead with caution.

Seriously laughing at all the Internet Tough Guys who want to kill, torture criminals etc, I wonder how big their illegally downloaded software and music collections are.

Prison is punishment by default, so the "should we punish" question is redundant. Simply taking away someone's freedom in a society that has freedom as a core human right is always punishment regardless of anything else that occurs. Rehabilitation programs in prison generally work a lot better than just shoving someone in a cell and doing nothing with them. People also get used to being in prison, this is called "institutionalisation", so if you don't train them to deal properly with the outside world, when they get out often they'll committ crimes just so they can get back in - if you lock someone up for long enough in that environment they start to have trouble functioning in the world outside where they're suddenly not being told what to do and where to go anymore and suddenly need to exercise a degree of autonomy to get by. A heavy institutionalised criminal mind is not trained to deal with autonomy and is just going to consider that all too hard and instead go out and rob another service station. This is why rehabilitation is important. Some people perceive rehabilitation as the soft option or being nice to the criminal, but what it's really for is to stop people from fucking up again, so you get to keep your DVD player and your XBox. It's an investment in crime prevention, and it works. It doesn't stop every repeat offender but it sure does stop some of them. True sociopaths are rare (unlike people who pretend to be sociopaths on the Internet, who are fucking everywhere), everyone else has got a pretty good stab at functioning in society if you're willing to spend some time showing them how to do it. Statistically most criminals come from broken homes and they probably weren't in fact taught important things about how to function in society, if they don't get that knowledge from somewhere, yes, they will keep offending.

A bunch of people in prison is a wasted resource if they're not doing anything. Keeping someone locked up is very expensive too, it costs about two to three times more to keep someone behind bars doing jack shit than to give them a college education, or teach them a trade, or get them doing some community work (source: Ice-T "The Ice Opinion" 2nd ed. pp.57). A large chunk of my tax dollars therefore goes directly to keeping people behind bars. It would be great if the government would give me a say in how my prison tax dollar was spent, for the money I'm currently spending keeping one person locked up, I could send him to college and keep the change. Or send two to college. Or send one to college and spent the rest on some other unrelated social service that needed some money, like education, the health system, law enforcement, emergency services, whatever. I'd much rather give the prisoner I'm paying to keep behind bars an education and a chance at a decent future, not because I'm some soft-ass person who loves criminals, but because I don't want those fucking assholes to get out of there, get back in the same street gang they were in before they went in, and keep doing what they were doing before.

You could then argue "well, why not just kill them, surely that's cheaper?". Strangely enough, no it isn't. The problem with killing people (assuming you live in one of those places where state-sanctioned murder is legal) is you've got to make sure they're guilty, which means waiting for the trial, and then waiting for their window to appeal the case to run out, which means you've got to lock them up for a fair while anyway. People who have been sentenced to death tend to exhaust their legal options, which means time, which means money on logistics and maintenance, and this takes years. If you start trying to fast-track the process, or deny their appeals, innocent people get killed. If you don't care about innocent people getting killed, then you have to start asking yourself who is the real dangerous criminal mind that should be locked up here, if you're willing to sponsor a government-sanctioned death machine that may not be killing the right people. Then on top of that you've got to administer the whole killing process, which is costly. Ask anyone who has had a relative die about the costs involved, executing a prisoner is no different in that sense. Even if you're not using lethal injection machines, even if all you're doing is shooting people in the head, and dumping them in a ditch, there's a lot of expense and logistic effort involved in killing. Even countries with no morals that have had supposedly cost-effective mass executions have had to spend millions of dollars making that happen.

Bottom line: a person on the outside or in a rehab program makes money. A person on the inside or on death row costs money. Haven't criminals costed you enough? I firmly believe that one of the main reasons why the USA suffered so badly in the GFC while Australia sailed through almost unscathed (we didn't even technically have a recession) is because the USA has got such a high labour force locked up in prisons doing nothing for their country. The USA has the highest per capita prison population in the world. Those people could be learning, working, generating revenue and rebuilding the damage they've done to their country, but instead they're just sitting there wasting billions of dollars every year on death row or long jail terms, because people think "punishment and death is cooler than rehab, man".

Hope that helps your sociology class...
 

DevilWolf47

New member
Nov 29, 2010
496
0
0
There is absolutely no logic in punishment. It won't make a person arrested for assault less violent, it won't help an addict get over their cravings, it won't make a kleptomaniac stop feeling a need to steal, and the murderers are never going to get free anyway.
 

Tiss

New member
May 18, 2009
23
0
0
I said punishment, but as has already been said it really depends on the circumstances. I believe for most drug crimes prison should be mostly rehab with some punishment, as well as for some violent crimes. Prison should be punishment for sex crimes, murder, and violent crimes where the perpetrator shows no remorse or something like that, because I think they are beyond help at that point.
 

The Stonker

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,557
0
0
Dimensional Vortex said:
It really depends on the crime of course, you're not going to rehabilitate Charlie Manson any time soon, but if it was some kid who got caught trying to make a name for himself by drug running or something than I think rehabilitation is good.

I think punishment is easier and more efficient, to rehabilitate you would need doctors and psychologists whose skills could be used else where. So I think there should be a mixture between punishment and rehabilitation, but I know it won't change any time soon.
The Stonker said:
Niagro said:
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...
The process of legal costs of sending a man to death is higher then keeping him for life in a prison.
I believe that we should use prisoners as slaves.
Doesn't that violate one of the American amendments or something? Even if your country is England, Australia, Scotland, Ireland and one of those other sorts of places, if your government allowed Slavery you could see America getting angry over it.

I think the system is called Serfdom.
A more thought out version would be to pay the prisoners but all of the money would go to charity, :D
 

Biosophilogical

New member
Jul 8, 2009
3,264
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
Biosophilogical said:
CrystalShadow said:
RamirezDoEverything said:
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.
Punishment is equally meaningless though; It does nothing to prevent crime, and can make criminals act even worse later on if they are actually going to be released.
It doesn't undo what they did either.

Basically, it's just an excuse for being almost as bad as the criminals.
But whatever. I've long since given up expecting fairness or rational behaviour from people.
(most Punishment is neither in any real sense - It's only practical value is if it functions as an effective deterrent, but the people who would be put off by deterrents can usually be dealt with more effectively by other methods anyway.)
Hurray, someone on the first page who isn't bat-shit evil-insane ... and who also shares my view of punishment.

OT: Pain is pain, no matter who it is caused to. Pain, (or punishment/damage/etc) should always be used minimally. If preventing someone from killing someone else only requires a stern talking to, then don't go punching them in the face. sure, both may work, but one is less painful tha the other, and is therefore the better option. As for prison/criminal 'justice[footnote]How I hate that word, it sounds more like people dressing up vengeance to feel better than anything 'just' being done[/footnote]', if the person is a minor offender, it can act as a deterrent for future crimes (and also deters people from doing it in the first place), and if the person is a crazy-arsed serial killer, than prison either keeps them out of society (and therefore prevents them from killing others) until they can be rehabilitated, or it stops them from causing harm to others if they can't be helped.

So yeah, minimal-effective pain/punishment, because justice is just vengeance performed by the law.
I despair the most about people's attitudes when I come across those that think being the victim of someone else's misdeeds is an open invitation to do anything you feel like back to them.

Self-defense is one thing, but that doesn't mean retaliating in a way that is out of all proportion to what this person is doing (or trying to do) to you.

You can't trade human rights off against each-other arbitrarily, or they lose all meaning.
But that's the thing isn't it? So many people are raised to believe that vengeance is justice[footnote]Though really, is there such a thing as justice? If justice demands a price, then is it just? Or is it just vengeance with a prettier title?[/footnote]. People get hurt by someone else and their pain becomes anger, which makes them want revenge, but if you need to be driven by anger to consider something 'worth doing', then how is it worth doing? I have met very few people who view anger as useless, because if you need anger to do something, it isn't worth it, if it is worth it, you don't need anger.

But that's just my view, that anger is a negative influence, not a positive one; that pain is still pain, no matter who it is caused to, and that it should only be used minimally.
 

Sansha

There's a principle in business
Nov 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
Rehabilitation at first, to show people the error of their ways, how to improve themselves, education, employment options etc, to help people who have made mistakes get a second chance.

But for the second offense onward, a screaming nightmare from which there is no waking. Nothing inhumane like torture, just a miserable, crushing experience that would put the want of death in anyone.
 

Arkley

New member
Mar 12, 2009
522
0
0
Neither: they should be put to work. The two camps of this issue will argue 'till the cows come home about whether punishment is an effective deterrent and whether rehabilitation works, and there's strong evidence to both support and discredit both sides of the debate.

So I say: fuck it. Have the prisoners do something useful. Here's what I'd do idea: Clean, renewable electricity is basically generated by spinning turbines by wind or water - some source of movement is required. So, I'd build several hybrid prison-power plants.

Prisoners will be treated humanely, but for 8 hours a day they'll spin turbines by hand or by peddling. They'll get lunch breaks and so on, like anyone working an 8 hour shift. There'll be a volunteer-supported mandatory rehabilitation program that prisoners will attend every other day after their shifts.

There you have it. A prison that not only makes money, but does so by generating clean electricity. It punishes by placing physical and monotonous demands on the prisoners and still leaves them time to be rehabilitated.

It'll either be an excellent source of renewable power or a great deterrent from crime. Win-win.