4 ms·
In other words, you can imprison somebody not out of some sort of desire to "get back at them", and not with any hope of correcting their behavior, but merely t
by npsimons 13y ago
In other words, you can imprison somebody not out of some sort of desire to "get back at them", and not with any hope of correcting their behavior, but merely to make sure they cannot injure people again.
This is the only truly just reason for impeding anyone's freedoms. Rehabilitation is certainly a noble end, but anything else seems to be disastrously misguided, as is evidenced by the modern situation we live in. Deterrence? How do you deter someone who has no other avenue to make a living, as we have done to felons? Retribution is also a truly vulgar line of thinking, appealing to our basest instincts, and we need to grow out of it as soon as possible.
- jlgreco 13y ago"This is the only truly just reason for impeding anyone's freedoms. Rehabilitation is certainly a noble end" Yes, that makes sense. Rehabilitation is something that you might as well attempt while detaining somebody dangerous, but detainment is obviously the priority.
- jacquesm 13y agoIndeed. In the first phase of incarceration the priority is to remove threat from society, over time it shifts to rehabilitation.
- greedo 13y agoConsider a non-violent, white collar crime. Bernie Madoff for instance. He bilked billions from people. Say instead of being sentenced to jail, he was merely barred from any type of financial dealings, and forced to repay his victims. Would justice have been served?
- ollysb 13y agoThe issue then would be deterrence, it would you could try your luck, in which case you could win really big, but if it didn't work out it wouldn't really matter because you wouldn't have lost anything that you had in the first place.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]