4 ms·

you are mixing two separate topics. Concern of reoffending =/= optimizing rehabilitation. reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration - False

you are mixing two separate topics. Concern of reoffending =/= optimizing rehabilitation. reoffending is rarely if ever given much actual consideration - False, It is usually the #1 consideration, and why courts look at criminal history, risk factors, ect. This doesnt have to be based on rehabilitation, but can be justified simply with a incapacitation rationale. E.G. You think someone is likely to reoffend so you lock them up longer. not because you think it will offer more rehabilitation, but because it incapacitates them for longer. 3 strikes laws are a classic example of this. You dont give someone a 25 sentence because thats how long it takes to rehabilitate them. you do it because you think they are a serial offender you want to keep off the streets and they are unlikely to be rehabilitated

vidarh 2y ago
> False, It is usually the #1 consideration No, it is not, or the prison system would be structured entirely differently. Courts do not have the power to affect that. > E.G. You think someone is likely to reoffend so you lock them up longer. not because you think it will offer more rehabilitation, but because it incapacitates them for longer. The reality is that this is unproductive when it comes to reducing crime. > 3 strikes laws are a classic example of this. You dont give someone a 25 sentence because thats how long it takes to rehabilitate them. you do it because you think they are a serial offender you want to keep off the streets and they are unlikely to be rehabilitated The reality is that this too is ineffective at reducing crime.