3 ms·

While I agree with your general point -- that rehabilitation isn't determinable at sentencing -- I'd still make the argument that focusing on rehabilitation wit

While I agree with your general point -- that rehabilitation isn't determinable at sentencing -- I'd still make the argument that focusing on rehabilitation with no other change in the system would lead to more positive outcomes than our current system. Yes, keeping people in some rehab situation for as long as necessary but no longer would be ideal, simply allowing for some possibility of rehabilitation for the time that they are sentenced would still be a better situation than the one we have now. Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct. For an historical (and I believe this still happens in some cases?) example of how things can go wrong, take a look at the old state-run mental health system the US had.

Crito 11y ago
Just tacking rehabilitation onto our existing system yields a hybridization of rehabilitation and punishment, where people are release either when they are rehabilitated, or when we have determined that they are punished enough. Whichever happened first would trigger the release. This leaves us with a system that deliberately releases non-reformed criminals back into the public. Maybe that is better than our current system, but I think we should certainly aspire for better. > "Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct" While that is true, I would argue that not incapacitating somebody for exactly as long as is necessary is itself injustice. It means that we will knowingly be imprisoning people longer than is necessary (obviously abusive) and it means that we will be knowingly releasing non-reformed criminals back into the public (I consider this to be abusive to the public.) Incapacitation determined on individual basis is a precise tool, a very sharp knife. In the hands of an authoritarian regime, it could be very dangerous. But in the hands of a liberal lawful society, it allows the least harm possible for everybody involved. We could deny ourselves these tools, for fear of what could be done with them (and in the process, cause certain unnecessary harm). Or we could strive to be the very best that we can be, and give ourselves the tools necessary to achieve that.

Crito 11y ago

Just tacking rehabilitation onto our existing system yields a hybridization of rehabilitation and punishment, where people are release either when they are rehabilitated, or when we have determined that they are punished enough. Whichever happened first would trigger the release. This leaves us with a system that deliberately releases non-reformed criminals back into the public. Maybe that is better than our current system, but I think we should certainly aspire for better. > "Having indeterminate sentencing would also be rife with possibilities of misconduct" While that is true, I would argue that not incapacitating somebody for exactly as long as is necessary is itself injustice. It means that we will knowingly be imprisoning people longer than is necessary (obviously abusive) and it means that we will be knowingly releasing non-reformed criminals back into the public (I consider this to be abusive to the public.) Incapacitation determined on individual basis is a precise tool, a very sharp knife. In the hands of an authoritarian regime, it could be very dangerous. But in the hands of a liberal lawful society, it allows the least harm possible for everybody involved. We could deny ourselves these tools, for fear of what could be done with them (and in the process, cause certain unnecessary harm). Or we could strive to be the very best that we can be, and give ourselves the tools necessary to achieve that.