Crosswords0 min ago
Crime & Punishment
8 Answers
Is punishment more important than rehabilitation?
What should we, as a society, do with those who cannot be rehabilitated?
(I am talking about serious crime - murder, rape, paedophilia etc... Housebreakers and the like, whilst scum, are, I feel, perfectly rehabilitable).
What should we, as a society, do with those who cannot be rehabilitated?
(I am talking about serious crime - murder, rape, paedophilia etc... Housebreakers and the like, whilst scum, are, I feel, perfectly rehabilitable).
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Why do you think there is a link between the seriousness of the crime and whether or not they can be rehabilitated?
Somebody who kills their husband or wife in a fit of jealosy may never do so again with or without intervention yet somebody who's spent their life at burglary and petty crime may be beyond change
Somebody who kills their husband or wife in a fit of jealosy may never do so again with or without intervention yet somebody who's spent their life at burglary and petty crime may be beyond change
Well I'd say there are 4 reasons for a sentence:
1) to protect the public from further offences
2) to attempt to rehabilitate
3) to fulfill some sense of justice for want of a better word
4) to deter further offences
The real challenge is balancing all of these with respect to each other and to make them in some way proportionate to the crime and create an increasing scale
If you make rape a capital offence not only is it not proportionate to the crime (if no life was taken it's not proportionate to take one in return) but you will doubtlessly see an increase in rape victims murdered.
Some people would claim that we should make a crime such as rape a capital offense as a deterent (4). But few people comitting a crime believe they'll be caught. Heavy sentences only act as a deterrent in conjuction with high detection rates.
Problems come about when these principles collide. Take a habitual burglar. He may be beyond reform and everyone may know that he'll reoffend as soon as released but if you only release him when he's no longer a threat you end up with petty thieves getting life sentences and lose the principal of proportionality.
Probably the best way to reduce crime rates is to increase detection rates and publicise this. In relation to this it may be possible in the near future to tag certain repeat offenders in the same way that pets travelling abroad are and track their movements. If a house is burgled you would be able to identify if a tagged offender was on the premises.
That would allmost guarantee detection of repeat offenders which is the real deterrent
1) to protect the public from further offences
2) to attempt to rehabilitate
3) to fulfill some sense of justice for want of a better word
4) to deter further offences
The real challenge is balancing all of these with respect to each other and to make them in some way proportionate to the crime and create an increasing scale
If you make rape a capital offence not only is it not proportionate to the crime (if no life was taken it's not proportionate to take one in return) but you will doubtlessly see an increase in rape victims murdered.
Some people would claim that we should make a crime such as rape a capital offense as a deterent (4). But few people comitting a crime believe they'll be caught. Heavy sentences only act as a deterrent in conjuction with high detection rates.
Problems come about when these principles collide. Take a habitual burglar. He may be beyond reform and everyone may know that he'll reoffend as soon as released but if you only release him when he's no longer a threat you end up with petty thieves getting life sentences and lose the principal of proportionality.
Probably the best way to reduce crime rates is to increase detection rates and publicise this. In relation to this it may be possible in the near future to tag certain repeat offenders in the same way that pets travelling abroad are and track their movements. If a house is burgled you would be able to identify if a tagged offender was on the premises.
That would allmost guarantee detection of repeat offenders which is the real deterrent
criminologists say it's the certainly of punishment, rather than the severity of it, that is the deterrent. In fact, I believe, most criminals just grow out of it. By far the biggest criminal demographic is young males; and most of them grow up, acquire responsibilities, and go straight. You could dramatically reduce crime by locking up every 18-year-old male until he turned 30. But that would also cause proportionality problems, I suppose. (And seriously inconvenience a lot of young women.)
Capital Punishment??? Suggest that to about 250 women in prison for 'murdering' their children, since to have doubt cast over the convictions. About 56 were going to be looked at as amatter of priority. A Polish lad served 17 years for a murder he couldn't have committed,his poor mother died just after he was released. Try telling that to your son grandson if heaven forbid they are innocently accused of murder. Don't think it couldn't happen to your loved ones,because it's patently obvious mistakes are made
1 to 8 of 8
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|