What do you think the prison system should be for?

What do you think the primary aim of the prison system should be. Or by extension the justice system (although answering 'justice' won't cut it).

 

Rehabilitation.

I'm against punitive imprisonment.

 

I voted both for Rehabilitation and Deterrence. That said, I do not give them equal weights in any sense. I think there are far better deterrents (social pressures mainly) and that the absolute primary aim should be Rehabilitation.

 

Prison sentences are punitive, prisons and those who run them should focus on rehabilitation.

 

All of the above.

The punishment is inevitable anyway and a factor in the deterrence (and potentially rehabilitation). Deterrence itself is important, for the criminal themselves and others who see what happens to them (though that isn't help by gross misrepresentations of the reality of a prison sentence).

The isolation option will be necessary for a few criminals who (currently) are incapable of not reoffending. Rehabilitation should come in at that point and psychological/mental issues should be dealt with in secure medical facilities rather than conventional prisons.

I think rehabilitation should be the key though and something not given anything like enough prominence. It also needs to continue well beyond release from prison.

 

^This^

10char

 

All of the above, of course.

The restructering of the penal system is the only way to correct the imbalances of the judicial system, and ultimately the lower rung enforcement end of law.

It is not really rocket science. Prison has to be a place of significant dread, to bring about deterrence. That's it. Build onto that significant dread, the other rehabilitation initiatives etc.

Just as examples, imagine a court system, unclogged by constant career criminals. That would very likely start to equate to the proper application of justice, if in fact the court rooms did not have to default to "plea bargain drive through window" simply because of congestion.

Or parole officers, properly tracking with a lessened work load.

 

I just want to say that there is a difference between punishment being an aim and punishment being a tool for deterrence.

Do we lock people up as a punishment to prevent others (and the same individuals) from committing crime (punishment as a tool for deterrence).

Or do we lock them up for 'revenge' a retaliation because they deserve it. You do something bad and we do something bad to you.

 

Constantly, in various methodology and degrees, they try to correct the problem from the wrong end of the law enforcement and judicial end of the spectrum.

Eg. Three strike. Great idea, until you are the 3rd strike victim in an armed robbery. Guess who is going to get capped by the career criminal who has nothing to lose by "erasing" the witness.

Anyways, the point is, is it must be worked upwards from penal reform, to sort out the problems on the rest of the spectrum. Won't work the other way.

 

Yes, I think the punishment aspect encompasses all of the above (with the exception of rehabilitation).

The main reason should be isolation to keep them from endangering others. The punishment (length of sentence) should fit how much of a threat the criminal is to others. Deterrent will come naturally as long as the prison doesn't start to become a cushy place to live and may even become attractive to the poor.

Everyone should at least be attempted to be rehabilitated, but we also have to accept that not everybody can be. What if they think someone is clean after years of rehabilitation, but they let him out and he commits the same crime again? So even after release the rehabilitation should continue.

 

Isolation -- keeping the criminals away from the populace to deter crime. This should be the main concern.

Punishment... well, I surely don't believe in severe torture or anything like that, but stripping someone of their liberty to live in a prison which should be ran at a very low cost is enough punishment. Also, punishment for things such as theft could possibly "teach them a lesson" in not doing it again. However, punishment for someone who murdered another won't do anything to change that person and is pointless if he's in there for life. I'm not saying punishment should be more severe for the thief; rather, the thief could be released from prison after awhile if it seems that he's been "punished" enough to not steal again. The murderer really just needs to stay away from society.

Rehabilitation could possibly be done through punishment for the thieves, etc., but I do not believe, in any way, that murderers, rapists, etc. should try to be rehabilitated -- even if they have mental issues and it "wasn't actually themselves" who committed the crime. That criminal is a potential murderer/rapist and he needs to stay away from society -- I don't care how much therapy he's gotten. People who have mental issues and supposedly can't control themselves are the people who should especially not be rehabilitated. If that's truly the case, that means he might not be able to control himself again and murder someone else. I don't care if some government-hired therapist says that other side is gone -- people have been released from prison for this and then they go murder someone else.

 

American prisons are designed soley as institutions to punish and execute people. The USA has the highest per capita prison population in the western world which is a sad indictment of American society and values. The system requires a complete revision but this will never happen - people are too backward

 

I didn't realize you could pick more than one. I would have picked "all of the above".

We arrested a man who stabbed an 18-year old girl at least 39 times. He was declared innocent by reason of insanity and amazingly, miraculously, he was cured in less than six months and scheduled to be released. I checked and everyone he'd dealt with in the "hospital" was male. I wasn't a psychiatrist but it seem to me the problem might be with women. I got the court to order an independent eveluation by a doctor I chose. I picked a respected psychiatrist who happened to be a woman. The cured murderer lasted three minutes before he attacked her.

If that young man had been released and the young woman he murdered was my daughter, I'd kill him. If the government quits punishing people you can count on needing to punish honest people. That's what England does. You get burgled regularly it's ignored but if you shoot a burglar you go to prison. A man breaks into your home he gets a caution but if you "assault" him and push him out a window, you get arrested. That sounds like a society heading for riots. At some point, the victims turn.

Tell me how many times you'd go for rehabilitation. One murder, two, three? How about pedophiles? When would you just give up and quit releasing the guy? One kid? Ten kids? Ever?

The way the system works now there is virtually no deterrence. Light sentences, 90% plea bargaining, lengthy appeals, early releases. It's a sad, sad joke.

How about if we started sooner? What if we quit throwing kids out of school when they're 13 or 14? What if kids were encouraged to work instead of encouraged to rob? What if getting welfare was conditional on your kids being in school and performing? What if getting welfare was conditional on the parent, it is just one, attending parent/teachers meetings? What if the teachers unions were told the schools don't exist for their convenience and enrichment? What if we still had legitimate parole to help those who can be helped and to facilitate the return to prison for the others? I know it won't happen but just what if?

 

Idealy it should be for all for. Not just one.

 

I picked "other" as it should be a combination of punishment and rehabilitation.

 

Punishment,big time
You (*)(*)(*)(*) up and break the law,you deserve to be punished,not coddled and babied.

 

Prison is and should be for punishment, and for many isolation.

 

I voted isolation, mind you, I don't believe prison should ever be used for rehabilitation. I have seen the extent of what prison does to people, and no amount of classes changes the overall institutionalizing of the individual. Only thieves, sexual and violent offenders should ever be incarcerated, and all should be isolated from each other. No one should ever have the opportunity to rape a fellow inmate. Thieves should never be allowed to collaborate or learn from each other. There shouldn't be 2 systems of justice(white collar vs blue). A white collar criminal should be stripped of everything with cops kicking in his door and his dog shot like a bank robber. Drugs should be legalized, but abuses would still be criminal such as driving under the influence, and people such as those should go to minimum security rehabilitation centers. People in politics, or in roles assigned to the state or public sector, who break rules should be guilty of treason, whether working with a foreign entity, or just lining their own or friends pockets. Those found guilty of treason should be put to death. No incarceration.

 

Sorry for the tangent but does that ever actually happen? The only reports I've ever heard about three strikes laws involve criminals getting their third strike for something petty (e.g. stealing a chocolate bar). Are there any actual examples of someone on a third strike actively deciding to do something because they're going down for life anyway?

 

Because the law is allowed to stack charges for one incident, most get 3 strikes all at once. Something that seriously needs to change. Stacking charges for one incident should be a violation of the double jeopardy rule. The 3 strikes rule should be up to each individual state to implement if they choose, but stacking charges should be against the law constitutionally at the federal level.

 

Hard for me to say Joe. I know it happens, but couldn't say to what degree. Statiscally it might be hard to find anything actually "real". Perhaps if an officer who dealt with 3 strike criminal situations, they would be better able to give a proper perspective.

However, it was only example of how real reform should come from penal reform first and foremost, and not trying to change the areas of law and enforcement that are largely reactionary.

You have them at the penal stage. Correct the problems there.

 

Rehabilitation is a nice idea and I think that it is a really good addition if it can actually be done but with that being said the primary reason should to be to punish those who have done wrong to others.

 

As each nation has its own problems, people from all over the globe talking about prison as a whole is an exercise in futility. Prison in America screws people up permanently, and only those we wish to write off completely should ever be sent there. In America people get stabbed and raped. In China they get forced to play World of Warcraft all night to make the guards money. Hardly a common denominator to work with.

 

/sarcasm?
10char

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/25/china-prisoners-internet-gaming-scam