3 ms·

The problem is that a nuanced approach to rehabilitation doesn't win as many votes as being "tough on crime".

• pmjoyce 17y ago
  Maybe because politicians obsess on selling the features of their "tough on crime" policy versus the benefits of the rehabilitation such as lower re-offending rates and cheaper execution. It's an easier sell and doesn't take much explanation.
  • philk 17y ago
    I can think of a few more reasons too: 1) Rehabilitation and its benefits can't be as simply explained. In politics, where the other side will be scrutinising your every word for something they can twist out of context, simple = good. You want a simple message and you want to repeat it endlessly. 2) There are powerful interests that benefit from the current prison system - private prison operators and prison guard unions to name two. 3) Rehabilitation won't always work. If you endorse it, and even one prisoner gets out and rapes/murders someone your opponents will drag your name (and career) through the mud. "Person X would still be alive today if not for Candidate Y!" sort of things.
• adamc 17y ago
  The other problem is that you can't make people rehabilitate; in the end, it's up to them. While I would support a prison system that provided better opportunities for rehabilitation, it is not clear to me what percentage of recidivism that would reduce.
• grannyg00se 17y ago
  I'd submit that the problem is further exacerbated by the general population's impression that "tough on crime" means more jails and more arrests. In fact, if someone were to truly be interested in reducing crime, they'd go after poverty. This means reducing the rich/poor gap. And that is a slippery slope that leads people to calling you "-ist" names if they're interested in maintaining the status quo. So I'd say that the problem lies with the lack of insight in the general population.