4 ms·

I think “Rehabilitation” is probably a distraction. A mere chance might be all that they need, and America denies that to even people who have not committed a c

I think “Rehabilitation” is probably a distraction. A mere chance might be all that they need, and America denies that to even people who have not committed a crime. The lack of social mobility means that regardless of what programs or mindsets one experiences in prison, they are all but forced right back into the same environment that put them there in the first place.

aaron-lebo 8y ago
What you're saying is if there's a chance that someone is reformed, they should be given that chance. But the other possibility is that they aren't. If you're wrong on the first and keep them in longer than they need to be, that wastes their time and potential. If you're wrong on the second and they aren't changed you're putting someone else at risk (someone who is innocent). The probabilities aren't a coin flip. Someone committing armed robbery at 17 had issues. If you know your prison system not only doesn't solve those issues but probably exacerbates them, the odds are you put that person out at 22 (or however early) and not only will they not be changed, but they'll have met real criminals and have few options. That's reckless and people who didn't rob someone at gunpoint shouldn't have to deal with the risk. That's why if we aren't actually rehabilitating, you're basically playing with a loaded gun, which is why risk averse politicians and judges aren't going anywhere near that and by odds the "correct" choice. Rehabilitation isn't a distraction. You have an actual problem that you can solve by: locking them away (we do this), helping them to become productive (rehabilitation), or hoping they've changed. The last isn't a solution, it's trusting in human nature, which in this situation has already shown to be faulty.