Which of the following should be the main focus and/or goal of Prisons?

Question

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

Voted B, though not quite for the reason listed on the ballot. The purpose of the law in general and the penal system in particular is first and foremost, to protect society, second to punish the guilty and third and least, to reform the criminal if possible. In that order. Any other ordering is apt to produce very unfortunate consequences.

In that, this question is based on hopelessly romantic, not to say naive, premises. It assumes that humans are basically rational and social beings and that their spontaneous condition is peaceful and benevolent. Hence, the idea that murderers need to be given psychological treatment in lieu of prison.

There is no fact, extrapolation of fact, or theory that supports that idea. Indeed, the whole course of human history refutes it - breathtakingly so. Take this argument to its logical fulfillment and the prisoners at the Nuremberg war crimes trials - mass murderers and worse - to a man should not have been imprisoned at Spandau but rather should have been free to walk the streets while getting care for the disorders that led them to their conduct.

Imperfection and the human potentiality to evil are an irretrievable fact of the human condition. they are not an aberration or an illness but are rather where human beings begin. It being then the purpose of civilization, socialization and education to reign in this facet of human nature.

In this context, where the individual rebels against this nurturing of civilization, the individual needs to be removed from society to protect the innocent in society, to sustain its principles and as a deterrent to further anti-social behavior both by the specific individual and in the wider society as a whole. This understanding that given human imperfectibility that is will not be a fullproof deterrent.

Here is where the value of rehabilitation can come in. By inculcating in the individual skills and education - and where necessary treatment - the deterrent value of prison can, at the margins, be enhanced. It always being understood that such rehabilitation is likely to be effective at the margins. Such rehabilitation can also serve as an expression of the societal virtues of compassion and forgiveness.

The notion that prison does not work is problematic. That it does not bring the best out of people who are already less than the best is not at all surprising, To expect gold from such barbarous raw material as a matter of course is illogical at best, wildly naive at worst. Moreover, it is to expect perfection from imperfect beings - it to be recalled that both prisoner and jailer are imperfect. The difference between them being a matter of degree that conduces to a difference in kind.

In any case, the society has been up and down this ladder numerous times. In the 1960s and 70s the idea that underpins this question took hold - it having its own roots in the Enlightenment. Men are basically good, they are corrupted by society and so therefore when they commit crimes they are not to blame but are rather victims and thus prison - certainly without rehabilitation - is as much a crime as any crime committed by the individual.

It was Rousseau's idea of "the noble savage." The savagery being obvious, its nobility is harder to discern. Nevertheless, the emphasis shifted from penalty to rehabilitation and alternatives to prison such as "work release" programs and all the rest. The effect was as predictable as the sunrise.

Crime rates soared such that by 1978 a study by Gallup found that 77% of all women did not feel safe walking alone in their own neighborhoods at night. The impact on vulnerable low income communities being worse - with 91% of low income African-American women saying that they did not feel safe.

CONT.

Inexpensivefurniture · Accepted Answer

In most cases, rehabilitation should always be the goal. Prisons are full of people convicted on drug or theft charges, those kinds of people need help and rehabilitation.
In the case of murderers, sex criminals, and others who can't be rehabilitated, prison is about incapacitation and deterrence.

Vickymoore9 · Accepted Answer

I think obviously the only control in society that keeps most civil is consequences. That’s why those who don’t break the laws don’t it’s because they avoid the consequences. The ones who do are narcissist who will cheat lie steal do what ever it takes. They have no fuck to give about anyone else it’s complete selfishness. That’s why I think making prisons a house of horrors and not a summer camp like we have in America. But I also think we need to have punishments that fit the crimes. I think you take a life we hang you and feed you to the dogs. I don’t think anyone who doesn’t pay back restitution of a crime should ever be allowed out. I think their family wants out sell their homes or what ever. But at the same time I think we shouldn’t have life sentences. We should have a 20 year max any more than that we execute you. I think we waist money on monsters who should just be dead 💀

PaynefulPleasures · Accepted Answer

These are really good choices however there are career criminals that's all they know, then you have the inmates who have addictions who have been rehabilitated so many times that once there released within time the cycle starts again (I'm not saying that for all) then you have gang affiliation not that's a tough one to get around,& of course your sexual predators (pedophiles, rapist, etc) there is hope for everyone if they want to apply themselves but society plays a role on that also. Just my opinion ✌️

razelove · Answer

A and C are both valid, but the justice system should act as a sorting system. Some people have no desire to be rehabilitated. You don't become a criminal because it doesn't pay. Crime pays pretty damned well, and there's no clock to punch. It also doesn't show well on a resume if you do want to get out. Stop making large amounts of money at high risk to go work in fast food for crap pay and arbitrary rules?

So create two paths. Everyone has the rehab path open at least once. The goal being to get them a job in an area they can afford housing, and that job has some possibility of upwards mobility. Done and done. Also to get them away from easy temptations and judgement in their previous area.

For the second path, unredeemable, they see the rehab path as a joke and are consistently committing the same crimes or escalating in the crimes they are committing. Put them in an Angola setting. No goal in rehab, or even punishment, you're removed from society, growing your own food, maintaining your prison and turning a profit from it. When your sentence is up, maybe you don't want to be forced to live off the land anymore, and want the job placement... or maybe you wind up back in there again sooner or later.

ShortCircuit · Answer

I think the primary goal should be rehabilitation, but not everyone is able to be rehabilitated, so the secondary goal should be to incapacitate the remaining criminals who are unable to be rehabilitated.

Don't get me wrong, I think under ideal circumstances, it would be perfectly acceptable to perpetually incapacitate all violent criminals, however, due to the enforcement of non-violent crimes, I would say more than half of our prison population doesn't even deserve to be there at all, and even if we only imprisoned people for violent crimes, we simply couldn't afford to provide for them for their entire lives. So when I say we should rehabilitate as many criminals as possible, I say so purely out of cost-benefit analysis, rather than compassion for violent criminals (for which I have next to none).

Then as for the other two: I think deterrence simply isn't an effective strategy for preventing crime, and retribution is a judgement-clouding emotional response that has no place in a legal system--so those two should factor into the equation very little, if at all.

Xitomyth · Answer

Ideally, all of the above. You want a proportional punishment to the crimes, while separating criminals from society, in a way that deters further criminal activity, usually through rehabilitation. Rehabilitation results in, when it works and it doesn't always, will incapacitate and deter crime naturally. However, not everyone can be changed for the better by such means. Some people need that punishment to realize it's not worth continuing, hence deterrence and retaliation, consequences for their actions and being forced to face them is a powerful tool to discourage behavior. Incapacitation only allows for the isolation of and from society and ultimately only kicks the can down the road, or worse, it requires you to incarcerate people for life and then for all generations born from the incarcerate, which would lead to a slave work force. Any one of those models alone will only solve part of the problem of crime, which is inevitable, which is why all the models should be used to create a hybrid system that aims to rehabilitate through programs while incapacitating by retribution. Those three together will act as a deterrent by making it not worth the effort to commit the crime because not only do they get locked up, they have to show that they are no longer a criminal in any way.

jgokgotit · Answer

As a corrections officer, I can tell you that the rehab portion does not work as intended. Many inmates use it as an excuse to leave their cells, not for legit help. Simply put: most inmates do not want the help and do not take it seriously. As for deterrence, if that worked, there would be no need for jails and prisons. Many inmates are repeat offenders and some even have told me they deliberately try to get locked up to get meals and a bed. Retribution and incapacitation are achieved, but that is really all the jails and prisons can do. Some inmates do get rehabilitated in jail, but they are very few compared to the total inmate population.

Riebeck · Answer

Not rehabilitation. I wouldn't want to accidentally become friends with a 'former' serial killer.

I say abolish prisons. Send them all to an undisclosed island secretly monitored by cameras so we can watch like the truman show. What will happen this week? They can duke it out, team up, hunt, survive, try to get off the island, become pirates. If they actually made it back into society that itself is a right for a second chance, and they would never want to experience the horrors of the island, so they would naturally become better people.

Or is that too crazy?

HawkPerception · Answer

Deterrence in my opinion. Kind of sad to see I'm in the minority. I don't like that consequences for serious actions such as rape and murder just get you a slap on the wrist. Do you really even deserve rehabilitation if you've done such cruel acts at any point in your life? If someone were to kill a loved one of yours, you think the killer would deserve rehabilitation? If killing is ever option in your life, then you are a danger to society and need to be put down. If you lack the emotional intelligence to ever resort to rape, then again... you need to be put down.

The_Maphio · Answer

Of course B.
The only way to stop a criminal to keep being a criminal is giving them sufficiend negative reinforcement to make them terrified at the only thought of doing something against the law.
Rehabilitation is not an option as criminal activities are what they grew accustomed to and they are BOUND to fall in the same hole sooner or later.

This doesn't apply to innocent people unjustly incarcerated, of course, but funnily enough I don't see those wigged fuckers in tribunals ending up behind bars for ruining an innocent's life. So everything I typed is kinda meaningless.

Leavesbound · Answer

The primary purpose of prison is to punish. It is up to the inmate to rehabilitate themselves. The only thing prisons should have to do regarding rehabilitation is to facilitate it when an inmate seeks it out. Correction should come in three phases. The first phase should be punishment. The duration and intensity should be consistent with the crime. The second phase should be rehabilitation. The second phase should last no less than 3 times the duration of the punishment. The third phase is reintegration. The third phase should be three times the duration of the 2nd phase. If at any point the inmate fails then the process should begin over. Anyone whose punishment phase is unlikely to be completed prior to reaching 110% of the world record for longevity should receive the death penalty.

Chriscunning · Answer

I think it's a tricky one to answer and I think it depends on the crime.

If you busted for doing drugs, rehabilitation would be the choice.

If you say do armed robberies I would say incapacitation is the way to go. I don't see how an armed robber could be rehabilitated.

As for a murderer I would choose retribution, i. e. the death penalty. I again don't believe one can be rehabilitated and incapacitation seems to light. Note this is more for the planned homicides and also not exclusive to murderers.

Deterrence should come with all of the choices above.

Aethereal · Answer

Depending on the seriousness of crime, either of the four options is valid in my opinion. I treat each one as a level. Level 1 is rehabilitation; that should be given to people who have done something to land them in prison but not something too serious e. g. tax evasion. Retribution is level 5 to me (with level 4 being execution). It is what you do to people for whom the death sentence might seem like a mercy e. g. serial murder.

In sum, I believe the purpose of prisons should shift in relation to individual criminals, unless you want to have separate prisons for different levels i. e. a rehabilitation prison for people who committed less serious crimes, and a separate retribution prison for serial killers.

DJB72 · Answer

Irrespective of the crime the focus should be rehabilitation. Many criminals in Western society are in the situation thanks to lack of education or skills training. There's no reason prisons shouldn't provide an opportunity for reform - in the more modern world that's what they were originally intended for.

Go back 2000 years and prisons were for two things: debt and awaiting execution. A life sentence meant you left in a box. The Romans only fed prisoners if their family or friends brought them food. It's known while St Paul was in prison awaiting execution he continued to work making tents so he could pay for food. Most crimes until around 300 years ago carried the death penalty or a heavy fine, then they started transporting prisoners for lesser crimes to Botany Bay from Britain. The more modern concept of prison was begun by the Church as a means of helping fallen sinners back towards a Godly life.

Kaneki05 · Answer

To keep people safe. Anything else is an after thought. The most important thing is obviously to keep people safe. When they first created the system of arresting people it wasn't to make them good again or whatever it was to make sure they hurt no one else.
Now if there Rehabilitated afterwards great! But that's not the main focus of why prisons were made at all.

genericname85 · Answer

i think the secondary goal of a prison is your answer A. primary is close to C but not quite. the main focus is not to "incapacitate" but to "separate in order to protect". the whole purpose of a prison is to protect societies from criminals by keeping the criminals away from society. so it's C but just with a different perspective. back when global population wasn't much of a thing, exile was a common thing. it's not a punishment. it's just the acknowledgement, that the actions and goals of an individual do not align with the society they happen to live in.

DaveToo · Answer

Victims and their families choose retribution. The general population chooses incapacitation. They don't want to deal with an ex-con. Deterrence doesn't work usually. The life-long criminal mind knows what they face if caught, they still continue. The heat of the moment criminal doesn't think about what might happen to them at the time. As for rehabilitation, unless and until the general public allows an ex-con to start a new life, they seldom get the break they are looking for. Without that chance, regardless of whatever they have learned while incarcerated, very few make it on the outside.

electromagnetic · Answer

Prisons used to be about rehabilitation. Now they’re just lawless places where people who commit crime go to. Prisons have their own crimes, own patriarchal system, and governing rules. All warden will say they have an amazing rehabilitation program to ‘ integrate inmates back into the system’ complete bs.

TheLittleBuggy · Answer

I think it just depends on the crime for me. Drug charges for example I feel like should be focused on rehabilitation, however I see way too many instances in the news where murderers and rapists are being let go after just a few years of their sentence. In those cases I don't feel like rehabilitation is key though. I then think that yes, they should be subjected to extremely harsh and cruel punishment.

Joey_007 · Answer

A. In my opinion every person is a resource worth cultivating & even though a lot of people don't seem to notice or care, we need each other, the more people we have working or contributing to the betterment of our society the better, but there are some crimes like rape, mass murder etc. practically crimes that don't stem from financial strain that I'd prefer we put them down or at the very least unpaid labour for life. I don't know

Redred56 · Answer

My nephew still doin time, and I remember his attitude when he went in. A lot like I hear
now! But after say 20-25 he changed. Don’t know if it’s because the illusion of being tough is gone. Or the reality that his youth is GONE!
Either way, when and if you get and can stay out? Don’t expect it to be easy. After all would you trust someone that doesn’t have any background like "You" do?
Real sad but true.

Lilionna · Answer

Honestly a bit of everything depends on the crime. Murderers, rapist and child molestaters should suffer and or die. Assault, attempted murder should be retribution as well. Simple robbery with no one harmed, drug based offenses that don’t have a violents issue can be rehabilitated. Both work as a deterrent and in the process of these they are off the street

Jersey2 · Answer

Superset those that can be salvaged from those that cannot. Make different prisons for different levels of criminal mindset. 7 levels, or 9 if you are a Dante fan, you come in the middle one and find yourself getting sorted into your level. Then you can drop or ascend. Ascended means more privileges, skill building classes, more freedom and fun, and a shorter sentence. Lower levels are just like current prisons and further down are harsh lockdowns.

kingofthellamas · Answer

I think some countries' have prison systems more aligned to rehabilitation then others. The Nordics are very strong in this area IMHO.
What's interesting to me is that while at the time of writing rehabilitation is leading the poll (67%) some of the policies that stem from it are simultaneously very unpopular.

Anonymous · Answer

Ask anyone who's worked in corrections, and they will tell you that 99% of criminals don't get rehabilitated. Once released, they all go back to crime.

JuneLady · Answer

The whole point of prison is the isolation from society - other punishments could be administered, and reform centers are much more effective when it's mixed company - not just those that need rehabilitation - undergoing the same lifestyle

menina · Answer

Voted D, that way they probably would never commit another crime in their lives.

Anonymous · Answer

Depends on the crime tbh, there are some people who just can’t change. I mean there’s a difference between a one time murderer vs a serial killer. Psychopaths are almost never fully rehabilitated, yes people change but lots don’t and I think the safety of others is way too important to take chances. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree with rehabilitation though, I do agree with it, it should be the main goal but we have to realize that some people are beyond help.

DizzyDesii · Answer

A as well as having detectives look into those who have no proof of being guilty. So like why were they truly arrested and wrongfully committed? Someone needs to do like Monk and check into the crime and their claimed innocence

jshm2 · Answer

Profit for the prison owners. Prisons serve little other purpose than a social placebo.

purplepoppy · Answer

Its a combination of all of them but I think giving society a rest from these people should be it's main aim.

najekim · Answer

I voted "C" but with a close "D" since that is the main purpose for a prison anyways, being a punishment.

msc545 · Answer

Having worked in a prison, I can say from experience that the goals stated in # 1 about never happen.

Anonymous · Answer

So many gullible people said rehabilitation Incapacitation: while prisoners are incarcerated, they will be unable to commit crimes, thus keeping communities safer.

DrunkenMaster · Answer

A, should be the main focus even tho some people can't be rehabilitated.

karaspara · Answer

Has to be rehabilitation for me best solution for everyone though easier said than done and granted there are some people who really do just need to be kept locked up permanently

DCooper · Answer

A combination of 2 and 3. But since the rate of recidivism is so high, it's mainly number 3.

TheSpaceGnome · Answer

A mixture of all those things, but it depends on the crime as to which would or wouldn't be appropriate.

GnatSocks · Answer

If it is for rehabilitation, what is the point of life in prison?

888theGreat · Answer

Punishment and made to long for Freedom. So you don't mess up when you get out and lose your freedom. Also for the public's safety by keeping them away from them.

bulletbob555 · Answer

I do think more could be done to keep the worse away from the first time offenders. While locked up at least be safe. Teaching the offenders a job that can be used on the outside could help.

collie22 · Answer

thats complicated, punishment and rehab then for some crimes prison is to good send them to Jesus

MountAverage · Answer

A, B, and C to different degrees, depending on the type of crime. Never D.

ODC2112 · Answer

Prison is supposed to be rehabilitative, yet in fact it is a social trash can.

OddBeMe · Answer

Rehab, but also isolation from population. Def not retribution.

michael1469 · Answer

... bubba making you his bitch... should be enough reason to stay out of prison.

Slim57 · Answer

I'm all for retribution but realistically rehabilitation

sixtyeightplusone · Answer

all of these. we have too much crime because sentences are too light or people get off on bullshit reasons

Lone_wolf122 · Answer

All of them... They're all important and valid

jimmy2 · Answer

The best they come out is better criminals

Anonymous · Answer

They should get another chance

AllThatSweetJazz · Answer

Incapacitation and rehabilitation.

JessieBellll · Answer

Rehabilitation but doesn't work all the time

Pogi-Paddy · Answer

REHABILITATION ☯️

Waldoe · Answer

Punishment.

SpaceGalaxy · Answer

FIRST ONE

Which of the following should be the main focus and/or goal of Prisons?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should the primary goal be to punish offenders for crimes or rehabilitating them?

Which of the following should be the main focus and/or goal of Prisons?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should the primary goal be to punish offenders for crimes or rehabilitating them?

We're glad to see you liked this post.