3 ms·

As one of the people in the camp that firmly rejects rehabilitation: if you think that it's hard to convince me that rehabilitation is possible, I have bad news

As one of the people in the camp that firmly rejects rehabilitation: if you think that it's hard to convince me that rehabilitation is possible, I have bad news for you. Most of us don't care if it's possible or not: to get us on board, you'd have to convince us that rehabilitation is _just_, which is a much harder task. I think a good argument could change my mind, but it has to be a moral argument, not an economic one. "We rehabilitated your rapist and integrated them into our society" is considered by many to be an affront to the victims, and the very opposite of justice. If you were to convince me that it was 100% possible, and the rehabilitated criminals become productive members of our society, that would make me support it less, not more.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jon-wood 4y ago
What if we reframe this from the extreme of a rapist, where I agree in many cases retribution needs to be an element of the sentence. How about someone who’s been sentenced for stealing, which they did in order to feed their kids? They dropped out of high school, and have never held down a steady job. Do you genuinely believe it’s better to further smack them down with a criminal justice system that will prevent them getting a job in the future, rather than having them leave prison qualified to do something productive?
- saithound 4y ago
  > How about someone who’s been sentenced for stealing, which they did in order to feed their kids? Current valid defenses against a charge of larceny include amking an honest mistake, being mentally incapacitated, and having the intention to restore. If you believe that "immediate physical need even without an intention to restore" should be a valid defense against this criminal charge as well, I'm with you. I don't think we disagree on that. The law does, but it's much easier to convince people that certain specific acts should not be considered criminal than to convince them of the justness of rehabilitating actual criminals. So, as far as I can tell, such examples have no bearing on the question of rehabilitation at all: why would we need to rehabilitate somebody who's not guilty in the first place?! If somebody is guilty of a crime, however, how could eventually letting a perpetrator return to society, get a job and do something productive _not_ be a further unjust act against the victim? Almost everybody agrees that the state helping perpetrators of a crime to get revenge on their victims would be twisted and heinous. I'm sure you agree too. But living well is the best revenge, and that's exactly what rehabilitation is: preparing an incarcerated offender to live well (function as a law-abiding member of the society) after their release, and by that further torment their victims.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jon-wood 4y ago

What if we reframe this from the extreme of a rapist, where I agree in many cases retribution needs to be an element of the sentence. How about someone who’s been sentenced for stealing, which they did in order to feed their kids? They dropped out of high school, and have never held down a steady job. Do you genuinely believe it’s better to further smack them down with a criminal justice system that will prevent them getting a job in the future, rather than having them leave prison qualified to do something productive?

saithound 4y ago
> How about someone who’s been sentenced for stealing, which they did in order to feed their kids? Current valid defenses against a charge of larceny include amking an honest mistake, being mentally incapacitated, and having the intention to restore. If you believe that "immediate physical need even without an intention to restore" should be a valid defense against this criminal charge as well, I'm with you. I don't think we disagree on that. The law does, but it's much easier to convince people that certain specific acts should not be considered criminal than to convince them of the justness of rehabilitating actual criminals. So, as far as I can tell, such examples have no bearing on the question of rehabilitation at all: why would we need to rehabilitate somebody who's not guilty in the first place?! If somebody is guilty of a crime, however, how could eventually letting a perpetrator return to society, get a job and do something productive _not_ be a further unjust act against the victim? Almost everybody agrees that the state helping perpetrators of a crime to get revenge on their victims would be twisted and heinous. I'm sure you agree too. But living well is the best revenge, and that's exactly what rehabilitation is: preparing an incarcerated offender to live well (function as a law-abiding member of the society) after their release, and by that further torment their victims.