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

[HawkPerception]

I personally believe that for any serious crime like murder or rape, the criminal should be put to death. I don't believe it's fair that a murderer or rapist has money put into their rehabilitation and potentially integrating them back into society, while the victim's loved ones have lost them forever or have been psychologically damaged. I know not all cases are black and white, but I do think that times were more simple when people were just hung for despicable actions like murder and rape.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Anything that lowers recidivism I support, which is of course different for different crimes, different locations, different people. How we figure out who goes where, now that's the toughie. Fix a person so they know not to burgle? That's great. Keep a serial sex offender locked away forever? I'm good there as well. At a former job I dealt with the absolute worse humanity has to offer. Recidivism rate was zero on everyone the task force prosecuted. Obviously you can't do that on this side of the pond, but passing out hugs and lollies to everyone isn't going to convince bad people to do good. Look at all the cities that have lightened their sentencing to community service more or less. They aren't experiencing gross declines in crime.

[CuriousMufuxka]

Punish! These pieces of shit look at prison as a con college. They aren't going to abide by parole after serving their bid, shit even on work release there going to scheme until that bracelet comes off. I've seen habitual traffic offenders sent away longer than convicted armed robbers for fuck sakes. Granted the prison system for the most part doesn't care either and cry lack of funding.

[LRSJame]

I wish everyone here had access to the Department of Corrections' computer database. If that database were to be available to the public (and it should be), everyone would freak out. The Department of Corrections does not correct anything. It's a money-making scheme. There is no rehabilitation for 99% of criminals.

I know three ruthless killers that work as personal trainers at popular gyms. I've lost count of how many killers are working in restaurants and in construction. When you leave your home you are surrounded by these criminals.

Oh, and if you tell your CCO you're afraid of going back to heroin, they will give you free synthetic heroin (which prisoners have told me is worse than the real deal)

Then they pat you on the head and let you go to your construction job. (high as a kite)(this is another money making scheme)

So you asked about punishment. Jail is punishment, prisons are like resorts. I know a woman who killed someone while drunk driving. She begged the judge to sentence her to prison, instead of jail. She told me that she would rather do three years in prison, instead of one year in jail.

"Daves Killer Bread."

Dave got out, built a 30 million dollar bread business. Now he's back in prison.

There is no such thing as rehabilitation. That could change in the future, but it's not here now.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Rehabilitation but I do think we need to seriously consider our techniques and sentencing given the sheer number of repeat offenders out there among ex-cons.

Culturally, I think we need to focus on overcoming our tendencies towards grudges and vengeful thoughts. It's not so much for the ex-con's sake. It's for the sake of the people who hold these grudges.

I'm also not necessarily against the death penalty for extreme cases.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

* reconsider

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

One thing to support your case though: I lived in Singapore for a few years in the past. They are extremely hard on crime there. For example, they fine people $500 SD just for littering, apply corporal punishment to even kids who vandalize property, and execute people quite liberally.

For example, they once publicly executed a Chinese mother together with her teenage daughter via hanging for trying to smuggle marijuana into the country.

That definitely works. The country has incredibly low crime rates despite being an extremely densely-populated, multicultural country.

[HawkPerception]

Executing should be limited to murder and rape. Not for smuggling a plant into a country. That doesn't even harm anyone. That's ridiculous.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

It does work in that case though! There's virtually no underground economy for narcotics there. We have some problems here in Japan with drug trafficking of a kind that is nonexistent in Singapore. Japan is also so dirty with litter all over the place compared to Singapore.

The main downside I see to a more merciful rehabilitative approach, regardless of the crime, is that it doesn't provide a very strong deterrent against crime. I think it weakens the law's ability to deter people out of fear.

[DryGermanGuy]

That's what you ultimately get, as soon as you start with the militant punishments.

[HawkPerception]

Freedom and a little drug smuggling trumps militant punishments in terms of what's morally right in my opinion.

[DryGermanGuy]

Exactly. It's an opinion. They have another opinion. That's what's so dangerous with opinions.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

It's a bizarre little country since it's one of the most economically free countries in the world, but extremely restrictive in terms of personal freedom. It's illegal to even criticize the government there on social media to my understanding.

It's one of the ultimate examples that make me challenge my thoughts a lot (which tend to lead towards maximum personal freedom as well as economic freedom and merciful laws that favor rehabilitation) since I loved the country. It's one of the most beautiful and I've never seen a country so culturally diverse with so little in the way of racial or ethnic tension. As long as we are very careful to abide by the laws, it's extremely safe.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

The way they integrate architecture with nature is also amazing, like this:
https://youtu.be/QCZ8jInO7UY
Looks like something from the future.

[DryGermanGuy]

Aren't they the country that banned chewing gum and gives tourists fines for bringing it in?

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@DryGermanGuy Yep! That's something I recall vividly when I stayed there as a boy. No chewing/bubble gum anywhere and severe fine for anyone who tries to smuggle it in.

Also hardcore censorship. I rented Friday the 13th back then from a video rental store and they cut so much out that the film only lasted around 40 minutes and made zero sense with everything they cut out.

I think because of all the censorship of any adult material in the media though, even adults seem to have this kind of charming innocence about them, never engaging much in profanity, sexual language, or violent language. It's very cute.

But at the heart of it is an iron-fisted government with zero tolerance for crime.

[DizzyDesii]

I’m not saying I agree with rehabilitation but I’m definitely not for killing them, no matter how evil. I’ll leave that up to God and whoever sentences them. Plus killing them seems like an easy way out, just like suicide. The criminal should live a little longer and suffer for a while and feel guilt

[HawkPerception]

So it's okay for the criminal to kill someone else, but it's not okay for us to judge them? What if someone killed all of your family and loved ones? You still wouldn't judge them?

[DizzyDesii]

I dont care who judges who. I said i dont want to be the one calling the shots on if they should be put to death. Judging is NOTHING in comparison to choosing if someone lives or dies

[HawkPerception]

Alright let me rephrase... you don't think you should be able to choose if the criminal dies if they kill all your loved ones?

[DizzyDesii]

I think I should be able to agree that they should be punished. I just dont think it should be my call on whether anyone lives or dies

[HawkPerception]

So who's call should it be whether someone lives or dies?

[DizzyDesii]

Its in the government/judicials hands. I’d just let God work his magic. Karma and so on

[HawkPerception]

And the government is so trustworthy that you assume they are not corrupt and always have your best interest in mind?

[DizzyDesii]

I said its in their hands. I didn't say i prefer it be, i definitely never stated that i trust em. You keep tryna put words in ppls mouth on this post.

[HawkPerception]

You're getting a little triggered for no reason. I'm having a debate with you and all I've done is ask you questions.

[DizzyDesii]

Im not triggered. Im quite calm. But based off some things you’ve said to others, you’re making a lot of assumptions and trying to put words in our mouth rather than understand. And yes you said it best, you’re trying to debate. I’m not. Im standing on it

[HawkPerception]

Can you give me an example of what I've said to others where you think I'm putting words into their mouths?

I do have my own opinion on this matter and I haven't been trying to hide it, but I haven't been disrespectful to anyone to my knowledge. As I said, all I've been doing is questioning you to test your logic. If you don't want to debate, the you don't have to respond

[DizzyDesii]

Im not saying you’re being disrespectful but do you not see how many times you’ve added in stuff that i never said?

[HawkPerception]

Exactly... stuff you've never said. They were questions. I'm not sure how that means I'm putting words in your mouth when all I'm trying to do is understand your reasoning.

[DizzyDesii]

The way you said “so its okay” and “and the government is so trustworthy” and “you’re triggered”… all of that as if i ever said it. It sounded like you put words into my mouth and then expected me to agree with something i never said. If i misunderstood so be it, but im just stating how it came across. I hate text because i dont understand your tone through text and you clearly didn't understand that i was never triggered nor looking to debate

[HawkPerception]

"So it's okay" is not putting words into your mouth. It's going with the flow of logic in the conversation and literally asking you a question to which you can answer yes or no to. And if you can answer yes or no to it, then how is it putting words in your mouth?

And when you said "You keep tryna put words in ppls mouth on this post." that's clearly a defensive and triggered comment, whereas none of my comments indicated I was trying to put words into anyone's mouth. All I was trying to do was understand why you think the way you do and question your logic.

[DizzyDesii]

So its okay sounds like you think i initially said it was. And saying you were trying to put words in my mouth was said quite calmly and not triggered but again you can't hear me through text so you'd never know

[HawkPerception]

There are some responses in text that are pretty obvious to most. While tone helps to understand what someone means, you don't need it to understand someone for the most part. And what you said easily did come across as triggered where I don't think any of my comments indicated I was putting words into anyone's mouth. I think most people would agree with me if they read this thread.

[DizzyDesii]

Well let them read. But im telling you straight up how i took it and how it made me feel. And that i was never triggered but slightly annoyed. there's really no reason to keep talking in circles since we’ve both made a point

[NamerOfStars]

And I think the death penalty, if it's used at all, should be reserved for crimes like "directly undermining due process".

The vileness of the crime a person is accused of doesn't matter; a dead man still can't appeal it, be it littering or genocide.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Sure it matters. We care a lot more about child rapists being punished than jaywalkers. The vileness absolutely matters. That's why we execute for some crimes and not for all crimes.

[NamerOfStars]

@BoopBoopBeep No, it doesn't. Due process is due process, and if there's ANYTHING you think it shouldn't apply to, you're more of a monster than the worst criminal.

[HawkPerception]

@NameOfStars Nothing of what @BoopBoopBeep said was incorrect.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@NamerOfStars
You have no idea what kind of monster I am, but regardless I never said I oppose due process. What conversation are you having? Clearly not the same one I am.

[NamerOfStars]

EVERYTHING of what he said was incorrect. Due process is completely nonnegotiable, regardless of what you're accused of, or your world is one of terror, full stop.

[NamerOfStars]

@BoopBoopBeep Right back at you.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I believe in due process you muppet. Has nothing to do with my willingness to put a bullet in some people's brain. They didn't get there by the flip of a bleeding coin FFS.

[strateguy632]

between those 2, punish but primary is DETER more important than those. when we punish one rapist, light, the others say no risk and do it. but id they punish HARSH others will realize they won't get off with a slap on the rest deter most.

and in the big picture a guy would PLAN "do a crime get rehab, no reason not". so after prison labor for a long time, not free jail room but in exchange for work, later start rehab upon release WITH monitoring if really rehab.

[jshm2]

You personally are wrong then, and need your fucking head examined to boot.

Firstly, it's the law, not the victim or armchair judges like you, that need to be taken into account. A case is then built and assessed. To simply judge and punish is where fights and litigation start.

There is no "primary goal" or even a "secondary goal" as each case goes to trial on merits of successful outcome. Not to fulfill a quota.

[HawkPerception]

Are you really 46 years old? You have the maturity level of a 12 year old to immediately insult based on a moral debate question. You're free to your opinion, but that's all it is... an opinion. Get over yourself.

[AviatorTom]

It depends on the crime and the person. Some crimes are so serious, and the persons that commit them so dangerous, that punishment is the only way; rdhsbilitstion would not work.

If possible, the best is to mix the two... punishment to let them know for sure that what they did is wrong... and rehabilitation to help them not do it again.

[Anonymous]

Basically your asking whether to deter crime with punishment or rehabilitate individuals.

In practice if your planing on ever letting them go you have to do both. The only question is whether that deterrence is by itself enough for rehabilitation.

If its not you either don't release them or try something else. Unfortunately not everyone can be 'rehabilitated' by any known means, and will invariably commit anther crime upon release.

[strateguy632]

they arrest a guy and find "repeat offenders " we can't rely on rehab. he was in before nd clearly not deterd. need prison labor.

[Zestyassmf1997]

Punish. Rehabilitation doesn’t really do anything for the victims.

[exitseven]

Yes, President Trump wants the death penalty for drug dealers whose actions results in somebody's death. I think also for rapists, and people that abuse children.

[Dargil]

The goal should be to prevent them from commuting more crimes and disincentiving others from doing that.

[CozyCoffin]

A lot of people can't be rehabilitated and rather than either of those, I propose hard labor to earn their room and board.

[strateguy632]

precisely! that would deter most of them.

[LaurenM1997]

I agree on what you said 100%

[LaurenM1997]

I agree that the death penalty has to come back too many people are losing life to these losers

[HawkPerception]

Love your opinions 😁

[LaurenM1997]

Thanks 🙂

[Pohjolan]

If car is a danger to others in traffic then we won't just put it into a garage for a certain period of time and then release it into traffic as it was.

[OtterMan68]

Rehabilitation, especially for non-violent offenders.

[7Phoenix7]

Death is too nice.

[TheSpider]

The primary goal is the justice.

[FunkyMonkee]

You can't do both at the same time?

[Charliefretz329]

Rehabilitation should always be a goal.