> 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 a

> 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.