3 ms·

Not really. Being sentenced to incarceration at all is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. Imprisoning people used to just be what we did before the

by Crito 12y ago

Not really. Being sentenced to incarceration at all is a relatively new phenomenon in human history. Imprisoning people used to just be what we did before the trial, if they were convicted the punishment was almost always something else. Realistically, despite claims to the contrary, incarceration in the US at least has never actually been about rehabilitation. You had some puritans claiming that rehabilitation was the purpose, but that idea never really informed how incarceration was actually performed. Think about it, the entire concept of sentencing somebody for "X number of years in prison, then you get released" is at odds with rehabilitation. Doctors don't set up treatment plans ahead of time like that; they don't say "well you have cancer so we are going to do chemotherapy for 6 months and then stop". No, they continuously monitor progress and modify the treatment with the most up to date information that they have on that person. If it takes 5 years, they'll give it 5 years. If at 5 years they still aren't better, they continue treatment. Incarceration that is designed for rehabilitation is characterized by not having a set finite length. They keep the person until they are fixed, not release them after a predetermined amount of time despite no evidence of being cured. This is done in some cases, at mental health facilities in the US, and in other the criminal systems of other countries. Breivik for example will be periodically reevaluated, and never released as long as he is not fixed. That is what incarceration for the purpose of rehabilitation looks like. Life imprisonment, with periodic review/parole consideration (preferably done by medical professionals, not random yahoos off the street).

DanBC 12y ago
> Incarceration that is designed for rehabilitation is characterized by not having a set finite length. They keep the person until they are fixed, not release them after a predetermined amount of time despite no evidence of being cured. This is done in some cases, at mental health facilities in the US, and in other the criminal systems of other countries. In England a person who goes to trial but who is found to be insane will be diverted by the court to a forensic mental health unit. Prisoners who develop a severe mental illness during their sentence will be sent to a forensic unit. While there they are patients, not prisoners. When their illness is stabilised they get sent back to prison, unless they are too ill. So, someone operating under a psychosis will probably get stabilised and sent to prison; a person with a personality dosorder will probably stay in hospital. (This is just broad brush stroke generalisations). I have spoken to patients at two different medium secure units in the south-west of England. Most people said they would prefer to be in prison. One reason they gave was that in prison they had a sentence to serve, whereas in hospital it was treatment. (Other reasons given were better food in prison (something that shocked me, and that I raised with commissioners) and better activity programmes). (English people tend not to know that these important NHS facilities are often provided by private companies). It's probably important to note the difference between people who commit violent crime because of their mental illness, and people who commit violent crime who happen to have a mental illness which played no part in their violence. Breivik appears to be the latter -- he had various diagnoses but was found not to be operating under a psychosis when he committed his murders. It's an important difference. People with a mental illness, even a severe mental illness, are overwhelmingly not violent. But the constant linking of mental health words -- "crazed killer" -- and acts of violence act as a strongly stigmatising force. A person with a mental illness is far more likely to be the victim, not perpetrator of violent crime; a person with a mental illness is far more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else; mental illness is at best a weak predictor of violence.
- Crito 12y ago
  The idea of rehabilitation, as I understand it anyway, is that anyone who commits crimes is "broken", "ill", or "maladjusted" in some way that may or may not be reversible (something is wrong with them, and we may be able to rehabilitate them). If we actually designed a system with that assumption, then all criminals would be treated as England treats "insane" prisoners. They may not all to to a hospital specifically, but they would all go to some sort of treatment program that was designed to rehabilitate them. They would be released when rehabilitated, no sooner and no later. This is pretty much my point in a nutshell: "One reason they gave was that in prison they had a sentence to serve, whereas in hospital it was treatment." What we do to people in prisons isn't a treatment (and I assert, never has been). If we actually designed our justice systems to first and foremost rehabilitate, all convicts would be on treatment plans. Personally I think that we should get away from punishment entirely, and move to incapacitation complimented with rehabilitation.
totony 12y ago
>Think about it, the entire concept of sentencing somebody for "X number of years in prison, then you get released" is at odds with rehabilitation. Well, that is why sentences are reduced for things such as "good conduct".
- Crito 12y ago
  That improves the situation in cases where rehabilitation has been successful, but does not recognize the possibility of rehabilitation not being complete (or successful at all) after the predetermined time limit has run out.
  - totony 12y ago
    The reason we do not do that is that this would be refused by most people. Someone steals something, you try to convince him not to do it, but you're 80% sure he'll do it again. Do you keep him in prison forever because he cannot be "rehabilitated"?
    - Crito 12y ago
      If he insists on repeatedly victimizing members of the public, and nothing our scientists and doctors can do will make him stop, then what other option is there? Even in our current system, such a person would just be in-and-out of jail for their whole life. What value does society get out of that, other than the incapacitation provided by his stints in the clink? I really can't think of any value to retribution, so if we write it off we are left with rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence^: Rehabilitation: Doesn't work in this hypothetical scenario. Incapacitation: Works. When he is in prison he is unable to reoffend. Deterrence: Doesn't work in this hypothetical, because if it did then it could be seen as a form of rehabilitation. That leaves us with incapacitation. What else could be done? ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Possible_reasons_for_punishment* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Possible_reasons_for...
      - totony 12y ago
        There's the problem; we would have to incarcerate him all his life, or kill him, which is unethical from the current life philosophy (for such a crime).

by Crito 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

> Incarceration that is designed for rehabilitation is characterized by not having a set finite length. They keep the person until they are fixed, not release them after a predetermined amount of time despite no evidence of being cured. This is done in some cases, at mental health facilities in the US, and in other the criminal systems of other countries. In England a person who goes to trial but who is found to be insane will be diverted by the court to a forensic mental health unit. Prisoners who develop a severe mental illness during their sentence will be sent to a forensic unit. While there they are patients, not prisoners. When their illness is stabilised they get sent back to prison, unless they are too ill. So, someone operating under a psychosis will probably get stabilised and sent to prison; a person with a personality dosorder will probably stay in hospital. (This is just broad brush stroke generalisations). I have spoken to patients at two different medium secure units in the south-west of England. Most people said they would prefer to be in prison. One reason they gave was that in prison they had a sentence to serve, whereas in hospital it was treatment. (Other reasons given were better food in prison (something that shocked me, and that I raised with commissioners) and better activity programmes). (English people tend not to know that these important NHS facilities are often provided by private companies). It's probably important to note the difference between people who commit violent crime because of their mental illness, and people who commit violent crime who happen to have a mental illness which played no part in their violence. Breivik appears to be the latter -- he had various diagnoses but was found not to be operating under a psychosis when he committed his murders. It's an important difference. People with a mental illness, even a severe mental illness, are overwhelmingly not violent. But the constant linking of mental health words -- "crazed killer" -- and acts of violence act as a strongly stigmatising force. A person with a mental illness is far more likely to be the victim, not perpetrator of violent crime; a person with a mental illness is far more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else; mental illness is at best a weak predictor of violence.

Crito 12y ago
The idea of rehabilitation, as I understand it anyway, is that anyone who commits crimes is "broken", "ill", or "maladjusted" in some way that may or may not be reversible (something is wrong with them, and we may be able to rehabilitate them). If we actually designed a system with that assumption, then all criminals would be treated as England treats "insane" prisoners. They may not all to to a hospital specifically, but they would all go to some sort of treatment program that was designed to rehabilitate them. They would be released when rehabilitated, no sooner and no later. This is pretty much my point in a nutshell: "One reason they gave was that in prison they had a sentence to serve, whereas in hospital it was treatment." What we do to people in prisons isn't a treatment (and I assert, never has been). If we actually designed our justice systems to first and foremost rehabilitate, all convicts would be on treatment plans. Personally I think that we should get away from punishment entirely, and move to incapacitation complimented with rehabilitation.

totony 12y ago

>Think about it, the entire concept of sentencing somebody for "X number of years in prison, then you get released" is at odds with rehabilitation. Well, that is why sentences are reduced for things such as "good conduct".

Crito 12y ago
That improves the situation in cases where rehabilitation has been successful, but does not recognize the possibility of rehabilitation not being complete (or successful at all) after the predetermined time limit has run out.
- totony 12y ago
  The reason we do not do that is that this would be refused by most people. Someone steals something, you try to convince him not to do it, but you're 80% sure he'll do it again. Do you keep him in prison forever because he cannot be "rehabilitated"?
  - Crito 12y ago
    If he insists on repeatedly victimizing members of the public, and nothing our scientists and doctors can do will make him stop, then what other option is there? Even in our current system, such a person would just be in-and-out of jail for their whole life. What value does society get out of that, other than the incapacitation provided by his stints in the clink? I really can't think of any value to retribution, so if we write it off we are left with rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence^: Rehabilitation: Doesn't work in this hypothetical scenario. Incapacitation: Works. When he is in prison he is unable to reoffend. Deterrence: Doesn't work in this hypothetical, because if it did then it could be seen as a form of rehabilitation. That leaves us with incapacitation. What else could be done? ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Possible_reasons_for_punishment* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Possible_reasons_for...
    - totony 12y ago
      There's the problem; we would have to incarcerate him all his life, or kill him, which is unethical from the current life philosophy (for such a crime).