Das Boot said:
chadachada123 said:
Prison is supposed to be a punishment, and that punishment should end when your prison sentence ends. Sex Offender Registries and the like carry the punishment so much longer that the ex-cons will never be able to live freely again, and so will be far, far more likely to turn to crime again, seeing as they can't work their way up the ladder legally anymore.
Prison is only meant to be a punishment in the US and third world countries.
Dang, I just barely ninja'd you with my reply. I posted it literally seconds before your quote. As I kind of say in the post immediately above, prison is generally considered to be a deterrent or rehabilitation, or to keep dangerous people off of the streets. I just question whether a longer jailtime is necessary if it won't lower his chances of committing more crimes when he's released.
In the part you quotes, I was questioning prison use both as a deterrent, as rehabilitation, and its ability to keep danger off the streets if ex-cons are not given a fair chance after release and are going to resort to crime, lacking any other options. For people with uncontrollable urges (this case), it should be all about rehabilitation, followed by a HELPFUL program after release that attempts to bring the guy's live back to a state of normalcy, not sticking him on a public list and leaving him to flounder (and molest more kids).
I don't think that this 3.5 year sentence is anything but a punishment in the eyes of the UK, because rehabilitation shouldn't be given a set time limit, it won't act as a deterrent, and it won't keep danger off the streets for long (especially if he'll live another 30 years after release).
BNguyen said:
chadachada123 said:
Prison is supposed to be a punishment, and that punishment should end when your prison sentence ends. Sex Offender Registries and the like carry the punishment so much longer that the ex-cons will never be able to live freely again, and so will be far, far more likely to turn to crime again, seeing as they can't work their way up the ladder legally anymore.
When you decide to effectively ruin other peoples' lives through theft, rape, murder, etc. you deserve to have your life thoroughly ruined in return - just because you spent a few years in a building doesn't mean that you have made up for what you've done to individuals as well as society.
I really wouldn't equate theft with rape/murder. What would you suggest we do with convicts, then? Keep them in jail for life (or execute them, same thing really), even for theft? I don't necessarily think that the justice system should be used for "making up" what you did, but should more be used for convincing criminals to not do those things anymore, to see why they're wrong so that we as a society can benefit from it by not having to pay for through food/housing for the rest of their life.
Look at it this way: If you meet a kid that used to bully you very harshly some ten years down the road, and discover that he's a totally changed man that now, say, works as a surgeon and in his spare time helps out at an orphanage, I think that you would be willing to look past his past actions since he clearly learned how to be a good person in the time since. It's a little hyperbolic, but I feel that society should head in this direction rather than the "let them rot forever" direction.
Or do you suggest releasing them but ensuring that they stay jobless and a further burden on society, and become far more likely to resort to bigger crimes? I think that would be a disservice to the victims. I mean, hell, if I didn't murder my sister's rapist with my own hands (hypothetical, but I probably would and accept the punishment), I would rather learn that he has been reconditioned ala Clockwork Orange than just sitting and being a waste or being released without reconditioning and going back to crime.
