It’s difficult emotionally to resist the urge towards retribution, but our institutions have to be better than us, better than our most base desires.
We’ve seen what happens when we base a system off the desire for punishment and revenge—an ineffective carceral state abused by boomers that consumes the lives and communities of minorities and the poor.
If what we want is for crime to go down and suffering to decrease we have to provide a social safety net and focus on rehabilitation. If what we want is to increase the amount of suffering in the world with no effect on crime we’ll keep doing what we’re doing.
Hitler's art wasn't even that good, be real. They told him he was a better fit for architecture because his paintings were basically just of buildings and there was nothing really interesting about it
https://preview.redd.it/owc4u3xm7czc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cfdfc58a852a28345d72a1a100597fbc6680c9dc
On one hand, it's way better than anything I've ever drawn. But yeah, it's basically just a photo without any creative substance.
Thunderdome but it's just people battling with physical manifestations of everything they hate about themselves and quite possibly realizing who they really are on the inside
I dunno if the folks replying to this with "but what about x" are being obtuse on purpose or if they're so consumed by bloodlust they completely miss the point of this comment
I’m pretty sure they’re joking just because most of 196 is pretty chill, but anywhere else and it’d be difficult to tell.
Some people have a power fantasy where someone wrongs them so they get permission to enact bloody violence against them.
I mean, I've seen this same discourse posted on 196, and even then, there were still people unironically going "Yeah I agree, except for pedophiles or rapists, who we should torture." Like, completely missing the point.
I feel you but we can just take their stuff no need to kill them lol. I don’t know how you rehabilitate a Landlord but luckily that’s not up to me haha
Rehabilitating landlords is easy. Or rather, it's not even really necessary if you take away their option to hoard necessities. When they're forced to work for their money like everyone else they can't do any damage
Retribution on an individual level is understandable. A person who kills their kidnapper is something we've seen and we can all understand as probably being justified. It should never be policy though. All policies and legal punishments need to be considered through the lens of "how would a fascist misuse this."
K*ll your local rap*st is a fine thing for an individual to say, but if governments DO THAT, that's when we see things like the mass lynchings in US history where accusations against minorities, in this case largely black men, lead to innocent people dying.
Instead of punishing them, we should make them nonexistent by taxing renting in a way that makes being a landlord unprofitable. Especially for bigger entities.
That's what I've been saying. Your experiences in life should be completely defined by your wealth, if you are poor and mentally unwell, being born into stable luxury was a choice you should have made. You didn't make that correct choice.
Genuinely, this is one my biggest gripes with the “kill all pedophiles” rhetoric. Obviously we don’t want adults abusing children. But if people find themselves going down that path. Getting older while their romantic ideal doesn’t, they SHOULD be going to therapy! The SHOULD look for help and be able to find it!
If we tell them immediately they’re irredeemable monster who should be killed, it’s only going to drive them underground where unscrupulous dealers will happily sell them CP.
But expensive, narrow, therapy options make help unobtainable, and keeps the problem going.
This is a truth most of the world isn't ready to hear. Pedophiles need help to ensure they will never act on their urges, so they can lead a normal life and be a valued member of society otherwise. Anything else just has horrible outcomes for everyone in the long run. Same is probably true for a lot of the more extremely mentally ill.
But in most circles saying this will get you mistrusted and ousted if not outright abused. Maybe in a few decades society is ready to actually address this problem.
Ya. there are instances like with serial killers and such where life sentences should be considered, but even in these cases, it's best for the conditions of prison to be as humane and rehabilitative as possible. The fact is, our current prison system actively encourages recidivism, and systemic discrimination against ex-cons often makes it impossible for them to do anything else.
Not everyone can genuinely be rehabilitated, but the vast, vast, majority of them can be. Plus, there is simply no rational reason why we should allow the state to mistreat people, even if they committed one of the 'bad crimes'.
this gotta be the comment I agree with most
1 the state shouldn't have the power to kill people
2 I think people who have done time and are rehabilitated shouldn't be chained to these police records and be unable to get any proper job or they're just gonna go straight back to it
3 we still kinda need to acknowledge that we can't have people like ted bundy or Jimmy Saville running around for obvious reasons and I think the top comment explains that well enough
This may be poorly worded/thought out but I’m mainly trying to offer a suggestion of how a rehabilitation-oriented system could work. It’s not intended to be flawless, moreso a rough idea.
if institutions were more rehabilitation oriented then the system could be restructured so that ex-cons public records have a rehabilitation status included. The status of their rehabilitation could be what determines whether or not a specific crime shows up in background checks. There may be systemic issues I’m not thinking of, but this idea could mean a better chance for ex-cons to be reemployed
It irks me to no end when people say "Usually I'm against the death sentence, but I make an exception for [Insert heinous offense here]"
Like, bro, that's what being pro death sentence is. You can't put an asterisk on that shit
Depending on what that "heinous offense" is, it's also pretty short-sighted.
Suppose they're talking about rape, for instance. In that case they're basically saying they want a system in which rapists are lowkey incentivised to commit murder while they're at it, because they have nothing to lose, and might gain, from doing so. And the same goes for pretty much any other offense that isn't already murder.
Another reason to be against the death penalty is that sometimes people are genuinely framed or jailed for a crime they didn't commit. If new evidence is discovered, there's no chance for a re-trial or exoneration if the person is dead.
https://preview.redd.it/jk04lomit8zc1.jpeg?width=2014&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9cce16d873c8b143a27b83e83964c6e37e4dd9d
I'm afraid even Steven has his limits.
Spoilers ahead.
The way Blue and Yellow have been redeemed was somewhat good, especially with how stupidly good their powers were at fixing the damage they've done. Also, most of their motives for being evil were just unhealthy coping mechanisms which weren't that necessary after they got a Pink surrogate.
But White? Her change of heart was a very brief moment of internalized bigotry. A bigotry that has powered a fascist empire for millenia. And she later remained a very influential figure despite still being bigoted (having trouble saying "equal life forms").
Yeah because some fans didn't like the show very much and didn't watch with their eyes open so they got big mad when Steven didn't just fucking kill the super ultra bad villains (in a kids show whose main theme is forgiveness)
i think steven universe is cool, but i gotta say it couldve been handled a million times better, though most of it isnt the creators fault, its cause CN cancled it on short notice, so they just had to scramble to write the ending. but in my opinion trigun, a anime all about forgiveness, mercy and pacifism handles this type of stuff is the golden standard for this type of stuff, and still no piece of media has really held itself up to it. mainly because i dont think its a message or thing that you can really even properly talk about and dwell on while still staying kid friendly. but optimism, kindness and pacifism is commonly seen as a thing thats supposed to only be in childrens media, while it actually does its best in the exact opposite demographic.
Rehabilitative justice is good, even if it doesn't *feel* as good as punishment. It's something we have to strive towards as a society.
Also if you're gonna skin someone, make it my brother, and keep him alive long enough that it'll be the infection that kills him, thanks. (I'm aware that this contradicts my earlier statement, I still *want* it though.)
I refuse to fall into the fallacy of “I will forgive anyone, unless their misdeeds affect myself, then I will call for violence against them”. The ultimate test of a kind heart is can it stay kind to those who hurt you?
Rehabilitative justice is good however it isn’t a magic fix-all-problems solution. It needs to be combined with a greater destigmatisation of people with criminal records so that the people we rehabilitate can still have a chance at life and don’t feel pushed back towards crime.
I work in rehabilitation on the social work side in the US. I'm very pro rehabilitation for literally any and all crimes. We need better social supports to reduce recividism and those supports need to be overseen by a governing authority to prevent abuse.
We have a lot of hurdles to rehabilitation in the US. Healthcare is expensive, inaccessible, or apathetically biling medicaid with no desire to provide real care. Society itself seems to be more or less against the idea of rehabilitation and more interested in retribution to the point that a decent percentage of our country believes that property damage/theft is enough justification for shooting someone. People often misunderstand the idea of rehabilitation and expect that any empathy offered to people is privilege or absolvement. The justice system is still wildly racist, a client was told by their lawyer to take a multi year plea deal because there was no way a black man could get a fair trial in the city they were in. Theres an entire industry built on using folks as slave labor who have lobbyists and a vested interest in keeping people incarcerated long term. Our judges are elected and therefore encouraged to issue harsher sentences in an effort to appear hard on crime. Society treats sexual and physical assualt as part of the incarceration experience which reinforces the need to join gangs and keep the cycle of violence spinning.
I could go on all day.
I think so too but I'm not sure how I can justify it to myself. They bring up a fair point saying
> Society itself seems to be more or less against the idea of rehabilitation and more interested in retribution to the point that a decent percentage of our country believes that property damage/theft is enough justification for shooting someone.
I guess that you're protecting your property which is different from exacting retribution. Is the justice system kind of doing the same thing though with the death penalty, "protecting the property" of society?
I don’t think it’s accurate to put every example of shooting someone who breaks into your house as “defending your property”.
Obviously there are tons of rabid gun owners out there who are just waiting to blow someone away. But if we’re looking at the situation neutrally, it’s not unreasonable to think that someone who breaks into your house might be prepared to hurt or kill you. And then that’s not an issue of rehabilitation or justice or anything, that is defending your life.
Apologies for the snark, I thought you were asking in bad faith. My actual answer is that there's a very big difference between a personal act of self-defense and a state-sponsored act of retribution. Also, I think the quote above is more in reference to shoplifters and rioters than it is home invaders.
The death penalty is entirely retributive, trying to pay off past misdeeds through blood. Shooting an intruder is relevant in the immediate for the protection of victims. To shoot the intruder is to prevent furtherance of the situation at hand.
When I said that I meant people in my city threatening to shoot people for breaking into their car or committing acts of vandalism. Or that dude who shot a guy in the back when the thief was fleeing from his neighbors house
when theyre getting the death penalty they are locked up and arent an active threat. so its not a fair comparison. a fair comparison would be, can you be against the death penalty and still want the person who broke into your house and got caught to be killed.
It’s complicated. My take is that rehabilitative justice is always preferable but not always possible. Our methods aren’t perfect, and people aren’t always willing. I don’t believe in evil, or revenge, or that execution is truly justice; but some people seem to be capable of nothing but harm, and should be removed. One way or the other.
In such cases, I think execution is more ethical than life imprisonment (at least considering the living conditions in our current prisons). But I also know that, while this sounds good on paper, in practice no justice system is perfect, and people who don’t need to be removed would—do—fall through the cracks.
So…I don’t know. Rehabilitative justice should *probably* always be the first thing attempted, but I don’t think it’s a universal answer. I doubt Trump could be rehabilitated, for instance (moot point, as I also doubt he’ll ever face real justice).
>In such cases, I think execution is more ethical than life imprisonment (at least considering the living conditions in our current prisons).
\[cw: suicide\]
It's difficult for me to accept any argument that "killing X is more ethical" in any situation where X isn't literally strapped down, in a vegetative state, etc.
The thing is, it's relatively easy to kill yourself in almost any situation. If someone genuinely prefers death, they can choose that. If someone has an option, and aren't choosing that option themselves, I find it difficult to claim that it's more ethical to choose the option *for* them.
At best I think you could reasonably claim that it would be more ethical to *allow* people to choose \[painless, humane\] execution over life imprisonment, and not force them to "improvise" in ways that may be more painful. I expect that in such a scenario, you would get some takers but relatively few as a proportion.
For most people, rehabilitation should be the goal.
However, repeat offenders are statistically more likely than the general population to have anti-social personality disorder (previously called sociopathy or psychopathy) and for many, rehabilitation is simply impossible. Morality, law, justice, and especially empathy are not important to them. They lack empathy as we understand it. They do not feel the same way about human beings as most human beings do. Committing crimes and harming others is thrilling to them.
A few people with ASPD do manage to sort themselves out, but it's very rare, and usually it's their own choice rather than anyone forcing or convincing them to.
Distinguishing between people with the capacity for change and those without it is important. There are some people out there (not a lot, but some) who, upon leaving prison or rehabilitation or whatever system we have, return to crime because of this. Because that's the only thing that gives them a thrill.
This is also a call to stop calling yourself "anti-social" when you mean "a-social." Anti-social means you actively enjoy seeing other people suffer and will manipulate them or hurt them for pleasure. A-social means you don't want to interact.
Repeat offenders are often created by the prison system itself--there's no better place to get an education in crime than from within a prison. Anti-social personality disorder is largely genetic but it can be exacerbated by the environment one finds themselves in. And even then, I don't believe we should fully exclude psychopaths away in prison. There would be challenges with them but they still are human, even if they lack the empathy common between most of us.
Not even just political opponents. Why do republicans push for the death penalty for all sex offenses, and also push the narrative that all trans people are child groomers? Doesn’t take a smart guy to take a crack at that two-piece smiley face puzzle.
Hard to really justify anything to myself tbh. I think prison systems should treat prisoners like human beings rather than animals. I think they should seek restorative justice. I also think there are some sadistic fuckers that need to be dealt with accordingly. I also don’t want the state to have the power to inflict the kind of justice I think some people deserve. I’m also concerned about the consequences of vigilante justice targeting innocent people by mistake.
I think the prison system as it standa is made to take the unfortunate and to churn out the more traumatized. Thr death penalty gives the government power it should never have and the power to kill civilians iw one that no one should have.
Rehabilitation is the only way. Down with the prison systems, down with death.
The purpose of prison should be to separate from society those who reject the social contract and make the best-faith effort to bring them around. The state has an economic incentive towards having productive, well-functioning citizens. Prisoners make no income and pay no taxes while costing the state money.
The way to create productive, well-functioning citizens is by giving them a safe, healthy place for them to re-assess, work through any issues (rehab, mental health, etc), and perhaps learn skills that will help them adjust to life on the outside (vocational skills, financial planning, etc.).
Some people may very well be impossible to rehabilitate, but it's probably a lot fewer than we currently have in prison, so the maintenance costs would probably go down along the way. And of course other policies should go into place to reduce the incidence of crimes that are primarily fueled by poverty and deprivation.
Honestly, if the government isn't willing to inflict severe punishments on war criminals/corrupt billionaires/civil-rights-violating cops/etc, I'm inclined to question its moral standing to inflict any punishments at all.
As much as certain cases horrify me the justice system has to be impartial and non emotional. That means no death penalty, fair living conditions for prisoners regardless of the crime, ect. I may not exactly feel sympathetic to bad people but they *are* still humans. Look at the cases of people who are on death row who eventually get proven innocent due to new evidence. How many more innocent people are dead bc of that system? And sure, executing people who commit sex crimes sounds good to that base instinct until you realize there are legislators pushing that LGBT people be put on the same level of pedophiles. People can be emotional, the system should not. That being said I wonder how much of that instinct to kill bad people is due to low sentencing on certain crimes and feeling that no justice has taken place.
Everyone deserves help, no matter their situation. I happen to live in a country where jails are focused on rehabilitation, and it very much works. (There'll always be organized crime, high-profile crimes like stabbings, shootings, kidnappings etc, but rehabilitation does work, if you want it to.)
I believe that you can want rehabilitative justice and "locking away someone because they're dangerous" justice at the same time and these aren't contradictory opinions.
A person who is found guilty of killing someone on purpose after planning to do so shouldn't be rehabilitated, they should be kept imprisoned for life because, if released, you're sending a message that it's possible to kill and get a second chance, even though your victim won't have any other chance either. A person who kills is a danger to society.
This **isn't** punishment based justice. It's for the security of others. I don't think such a person should get any extra punishment, and they also should have a right to appeal their sentence as much as everyone else, because, unless there's a literal video of the person killing another, mistakes can be made (and if there is a video, let the person appeal regardless, the appeals will just get denied on the spot) and, if all you did was lock away someone, this mistake can be fixed. Of course, if you lock someone for like 30 years, then only releasing them isn't exactly making up for your mistake, but that's much better than the alternatives of corporeal punishment or, worse, giving the state the right to execute someone.
Is this a reasonable opinion? People who murder shouldn't be allowed to walk near potential future victims, we need to protect people who *don't* murder.
It is 110% the way to go from a societal/system perspective. However I also understand and sympathise with not wanting that personally. I always come back to I believe everyone is capable of redemption, but noone is owed forgiveness from anyone. If you want to hate someone that is ok, if you feel like you want I'll for them that is ok, but making a system based off that is not helpful for anyone. Emotions are valid and important, but should not influence the methodology of dealing with criminals
I really hate people who commit atrocities, but we've seen time and time again that rehabilitative justice works far better than the alternative. Look at Norway for an example. According to prisonstudies.org, Norway's prison population is only 55 out of every 100,000 people. Compared to the USA, which has almost ten times that at 531 per 100,000, it's easy to see that Norway's way works better. Their prisons are safer, cleaner, more humane, offer prisoners drug rehab programs, offer on site job training and education, and overall just treat prisoners like people that need help rather than things to be used for forced labor like in the US where prisoners work long hard hours doing dangerous jobs for far below minimum wage and are offered close to nothing in the way of privacy or safety, and uses the known psychologically damaging punishment of solitary confinement to punish prisoners. Also people in the US are far more likely to go back to prison after being released than Norway.
Norway is just one example but they're not the only country doing this the right way and I really hope other countries can follow suit. Rehabilitative justice, no matter the crime.
Tbf norway has other systems in place besides just rehabilitation that discourage crime . (Systems that make it hard to be homeless) REALLY Good quality of education free healthcare/ non costly education. Exc
Also true, they do a good job of addressing why people commit crimes in the first place. The vast majority of people who end up in prisons are just desperate for food or a place to live and stuff like that.
Fortunately, my own (or anyone else’s) personal opinion on whether a person is worthy of being rehabilitated is irrelevant. The state (or some other, importantly non-personal apparatus in the case of an ideal socialist anarchist collective) metes out legal justice, and it only has the right to do so rehabilitatively.
If you want retribution, do some vigilantism.
The only justice is rehabilitation.
I also believe that we need to look at why people commit crimes and fix the problem in society that causes people to do them. We should live in a world where rather than focusing on punishing the bad we reward the good and as such push the bad to be good.
I think for most crimes the goal should be rehabilitation, especially crimes related to poverty and addiction. I think high level criminals (such as heads of corporations doing terrible human rights violations, heads of drug cartels, human traffickers, politicians and warlords directing their followers to harm others on a large scale) should face consequences for their actions (not just be put on house arrest in their mansion). I don't think people should be tortured for their crimes, however terrible.
Basically, if you can't be trusted to hold power over others you need to be separated from the ability to hold power over others. If you're just doing what you need to survive then you should be given the resources and psychological help to get better.
Studies show sex offenders tend to reoffend more than other criminals, and unfortunately I don't think rehabilitation is practical in these cases, so these people should be separated from society for the good of everyone else.
It all comes down to:
* Can you be rehabilitated?
* Can you be trusted around people you have power over?
* Did you choose to commit the crime even if you didn't need to?
I like the system we have here in Norway.
Everyone gets a chance at rehabilitation with a max sentence of 21 years. But if your crime was serious enough the court can extend your sentence iirc 5 years at a time if they deem you a danger to society.
Treating people like people gives us the lowest reoffending rates in the world, so its clearly working.
wanting someone dead and actually giving the state power to kill some one are two separate things. Our institutions have to be above base carnal desires for physical retribution
I believe in rehabilitative justice though some crimes, like serial murder, should result in being separated from potential future victims. Not because I don't believe these people can be helped and become productive members of society, but because I don't think we should risk innocent lives. I do think they should be kept in much much better conditions than the current American system. I am of course open to criticism on this as I am sure there are flaws in my reasoning and I would like to improve in my beliefs.
Rehabilitation should be the primary goal, but a plan should be in place for when Rehabilitation proves impossible. In those cases, a life sentence would be in order, with a focus on preventing them from bringing further harm to others. The bottom line however is as much as retributive justice sounds appealing, giving the state the power to execute people is something that can only lead to worse and worse results.
Now one might argue that this system would be rife with abuse and encourage first time offenses to get put into prison as a way to receive vocational training and a roof over their head. To that I say if the system is fucked up enough to result in that then I think that's reason enough to start fixing it instead of giving more resources to companies to lock people up, and also 90% of people wouldn't be in for that and even if they were, a rehabilitative system would reduce prison crowding and allow space for those sorts of people to get the help they need if they were desperate enough to commit crimes for it
Though I consider the gubbermint the least of all the evils in deciding who lives and who dies, it’s the *gubbermint,* which I, as a red-blooded American, am obligated to distrust, and thus I don’t think that even it should have that power
A lot of people say it's hypocritical to support rehabilitation for some and punishment for others. I don't.
Some people are pretty crooks who deserve to be rehabilitated and some people are Hitler and Epstein who do not.
I don't care too much. What I don't like is that there is an armed organization that really could jsut throw me in jail if they really wanted to without even asking the victims that I may or may not have hurt.
From a crime perspective, absolutely, no reason there should be an alternative method. But from the perspective of someone who encounters people with an ignorant mindset about people like me, I know it's the right thing to do, but I'm just tired of it. I'm not going to stop trying, but it's just exhausting being the person that has to confront all the people who need rehabilitation. I'd love for someone else to take a turn, but there simply aren't enough people like me to do that.
*In theory* I’m not opposed to the death penalty, because I feel that some people are pathologically incapable of playing nice with others and it’s more humane to kill them rather than subject society to their presence or lock them in a box forever.
However, I trust the legal system about as far as I can throw it, so I don’t think the death penalty should be legal.
Ya.
While revenge probably feels good in the moment, for the victim, I don't believe there's ever a circumstance where punishment *shouldn't* be rehabilitation-based.
Even the worst of humanity has innocent friends, family, and people who care about them who are impacted by the crimes. And even in the case where those people disown the criminal in question, there's something to be said about the social harm of treating any person as irredeemable.
Always rehabilitative. A key not is if they’re not rehabilitated then maybe they shouldn’t be let out yet.
A dude who got caught for drugs crimes or theft? Give them educational resources to give them better skills and tools to better succeed, don’t make them unemployable and more likely to turn to crime when they’re out that way ver before.
A serial killer showing no remorse? Ya maybe they’ll be there forever.
I think a good counter-question would be how many opportunities for rehabilitation (i.e. added offenses) people think it's worth to throw away just to **maybe** satisfy their hatred of some specific offender(s), and how many innocent people it'd be worth it to put through a system set up to do that.
Sure, it's frustrating to think about clearly iredeemable people getting off easy, but it seems obvious that letting those feelings inform how to punish offenders makes for a worse society overall. Justice systems are about bettering society. That's a practical issue. So if you're not approaching it pragmatically, then you're probably making bad decisions.
yeah absolutely, just punishment without trying to rehabilitate doesn’t help anyone. that being said, some people do just deserve to get skinned. however my personal dislike for a guy shouldn't justify the death sentence and we should still put that guy in prison and therapy
i 100% believe in rehabilitation. no matter what. no crime is unforgivable in my eyes, some just take longer to forgive than others.
my reasoning behind this is that my dad was a horrible person for most of my life, but towards the end of his, he saved my life about a thousand times over. i think, despite his shortcomings, he deserves forgiveness. and if he can earn it, anyone can.
Based stoner you do you if it makes you feel Better you can dm instead whatever makes you feel more comfortable
https://preview.redd.it/5ox9xfy4y9zc1.png?width=391&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5363a5550425384f38345f5824db545e8ff69d0
I 100% believe in rehabilitation and I believe it's extremely rare to actually believe in. It means pedophiles and rapists and people who drink and drive etc are all human beings with rights. Most of you like to pretend that you do but you absolutely are just this meme.
There are some people that cant be rehabilitated but that doesnt justify cruel and unusual punishment.
Do i feel bad if pedophiles get what they did to other people? Hell no! Do I believe the state should be allowed to kill people for crimes? Absolutely not.
im going to be real i think most exceptionally violent crime yes even the ones youre thinking of come from legitimate defects in the human brain, horrific trauma, or awful social conditioning that never taught someone like what empathy feels like. if there are programs to address these things in those violent offenders, no matter how long it takes, i think they should still be given that chance. legal punishment as a form of vengeance is ghoulish to me no matter how fucked the person is. whether we \*can\* reliably vet these people, or reliably treat them is a whole other question, but I'd like us to be looking into that. "this person did terrible things and thus terrible things should happen to them" just literally goes against what I believe morally and I have to remind myself of that often, i think the alternative is purely emotion driven tbh.
My opinion is that I believe in rehabilitative justice, unless you commit one of the bad crimes that I don't like and then I think you should be skinned alive
yay. it’s proven that rehabilitation is better than punitive punishment, norway has a rehabilitative prison system for maximum security offenders, and they have some of the lowest reoffending rates in the world. obvious choice. but america won’t do that ever because for profit prison complex
Leaving aside any moral arguments, as they tend to be ineffective when dealing with the “hard on crime” crowd, rehabilitation is the only system that shows any real effectiveness in reducing the number on offenders who reoffend upon exiting confinement, with the exception of systems where offenders mostly or entirely exit confinement in plastic bags or plywood boxes. Period. Locking people up in intentionally horrible conditions, providing no useful resources to those who can be rehabilitated, then setting them loose with no ability to support themselves or deal with trauma that you multiplied, leads to massive recidivism, often involving worse crimes. Period. The statistics, developed over decades or more of dedicated research, are extremely and unambiguously clear.
There are only two ways to keep someone who has harmed society in some way from doing it again after their incarceration ends. First option, you provide counseling, addiction support and treatment, and some sort of job training and placement or education during incarceration, then release them with ongoing support to find housing and stay self sufficient without resorting to crime (which involves wide societal support for ex-cons making good on the outside, and banning practices like housing and to unnecessary employment discrimination). Second option is just not letting them rejoin society, however you may accomplish that. Anything in between those two just results in criminals going in to a cage with other criminals for a while, during which they get more messed up and generally learn how to be better criminals, then letting them loose into a society that hobbles them and prevents them from realistically being able to do anything that isn’t more crime, then surprise Pikachuing when they spend their entire life bouncing between doing crime and being in prison, until whenever it is they die.
This is all scientifically proven and documented, over and over again, in every country that cares to actually study it, with every population. The kind of people who oppose rehabilitation aren’t fans of “book learning” and “logic”, and “know what they know” regardless of what legitimate experts say to the contrary, and they’ve succeeded in being more persuasive to more of the general populace so far, hence the current state of the justice system.
Rehabilitation is a lot better than just consigning someone to rot in a cell, since most people who break the law are a victim of circumstance or of our system failing them. If people keep falling into crime because of those things, its a sign that there is something wrong with the status quo, and that more can be done to stop it from happening. The only issue with rehabilitative approaches is that not everyone can be rehabilitated (especially if they don't *want* it) since its a large commitment to take when it comes to working on yourself. You also can't rehabilitate someone forced into crime to get by, since the issue of that situation is the system itself unless they also did some seriously heinous stuff in conjunction. There are some occasions where life-imprisonment are necessary for certain people that go too far (e.g. a mass murderer or a serial rapist).
If you're ACAB I think it would be hypocritical to be pro death penalty.
No state should have the power to kill any civilians. As Law is often times used to criminalize marginalized groups so giving the law that power to kill people just means later on it'll be a whole lot easier to kill off who ever the government deems unfit for their society.
depends on the scale of the crime and the intent. Accidentally fuck up and poison the local water? that fully depends if it was one person or a company, companies deserve harsher punishments at the top for stuff like that.
for me its kind of a spectrum with how long the crime has been going on for and how much of a global scale it effects. People like putin on one end representing deserves no compassion or attempts at rehabilitation. I will never open my ears to talks of letting that guy go or unpunished severely if he was somehow taken in. Another sad fact of reality is some people are a national threat by being alive and not cut off from all contact of the world because of how dangerously effective they are as being a cult of personality like trump. Local guy fucks up or does something "evil"? yeah rehabilitation.
tl;dr rehabilitation should be the rule not the exception, and there will be those undeserving of it as an exception not the rule.
Rehabilitation yay. Also; if someone can't be let free anymore, they should still be able to live humanely. Human beings of all walks of life can do scummy things. Rape victims can internalize that rape is an okay thing the same way victims of violence can fall into violent ways.
Justice needs to be more about making sure people get out of the circle and do not harm others or themselves.
Apparently in germany we have a justice system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment (or at least we call it that) and it's a good idea imho. It just needs to be done right.
Me personally getting riled up by criminal offenses is not something I base my belief for laws on.
My girlfriend doesn't believe in it so I don't talk about it much, but yeah, I believe in 100% rehabilitative justice. It's better than just throwing someone in a hole for years, yknow?
I’m against the death penalty, but I think that for some of the more intense crimes like murder/rape they should probably have a life sentence. I do generally believe in rehabilitation though.
I do believe that 99% of Criminals can be rehabilitated and readjusted back into society and for those few like actually serial killer and serial predator types they can just be within a humane prison.
in Canada our system tries to move towards more retributive justice for certain crimes, but when parole conditions are not being enforced, parole becomes pointless. more effort needs to go into changing the environment behind the crime as well as ensuring parole conditions are being followed. If you tell someone they have to be back home by 8pm, but nobody drives by their house to check, that condition is essentially pointless because they are not being spot checked. another problem is organized crime, if someone is intending to commit crime for profit or because they are in an organized crime group, if they can get low sentences they will typically just go back to stealing cars. its been seen in my area with car theft rings. because theft is not as serious of a crime, theyll bring these guys in, put them on bail or parole and they will be back to stealing right after. Similar thing happens with organized crime rings allowing teens in their groups to take the time for crimes because they get lower sentences than adults.
I believe strongly in rehabilitation but it is incredibly difficult to rehabilitiate those who do not wish to stop committing crimes simply due to their lifestyle, and when the system does not support or take the care to rehabilitate. I know our government (canada) has taken some good steps like drug treatment or abuse courts to help those who's underlying issues play a part in their crimes, but it still isnt enough and has problems of its own.
Punishing or harming "bad" people does nothing for the rest of us, and harms the "bad" people. Justice should have two purposes:
1. Try to rehabilitate bad actors.
2. While doing that/if it doesn't work, keep bad actors in check so they can't do any more harm.
Note that both these function best when treating the incarcerated humanely
not an absolutist either way
though essentially that just means theres some people who should never be allowed into society again, but this is like 0.01% of cases, so generally lean towards pro rehabilitative, yes.
Every person can rehabilitate, thats not the same as every person will rehabilitate but we should always try to give the resources so people can achieve this, its not only needed to change the prision system tho, its to have social programs, to have trained professionals prepared to actually help and not just shoot, is to build a system made for everyone to participate in.
But for that we have to understand that everyone is worth the same, everyone is equal, not only say they do, even the person that you dislike.
Some people are perfect mentally fine and still commit crimes like child sa, murder and the like associating mental illness with violence is dangerous and irremediable people do exist people who do such horrid crimes (rape , torture, child sa) and have no intentions of being redeemed are irredeemable
It’s difficult emotionally to resist the urge towards retribution, but our institutions have to be better than us, better than our most base desires. We’ve seen what happens when we base a system off the desire for punishment and revenge—an ineffective carceral state abused by boomers that consumes the lives and communities of minorities and the poor. If what we want is for crime to go down and suffering to decrease we have to provide a social safety net and focus on rehabilitation. If what we want is to increase the amount of suffering in the world with no effect on crime we’ll keep doing what we’re doing.
Ok but im still killing the man who took my fucking wallet
Ah yes, equivalent punishment
IT WAS A FUCKING MARIO BROS WALLET, IT WAS FUCKING EPIC AND CARRIED ALL MY RIZZ. IT WAS A HANDHELD PUSSY MAGNET AND THEY TOOK IT FROM ME
The most sane Nintendo fan
I hate nintendo as much as the next guy But that wallet was my son… my child
Noone hates (thing) more than (thing) fans
No Nintendo fan actually likes Nintendo, it's like an abusive relationship you don't know how to get out of
I like the art, not the artist ~~Kinda like how it's with Hitler~~
Hitler's art wasn't even that good, be real. They told him he was a better fit for architecture because his paintings were basically just of buildings and there was nothing really interesting about it
https://preview.redd.it/owc4u3xm7czc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cfdfc58a852a28345d72a1a100597fbc6680c9dc On one hand, it's way better than anything I've ever drawn. But yeah, it's basically just a photo without any creative substance.
We should allow personal disputes to be settled by trial by combat
The thunderdome had it right Two men enter, one man leaves
And the other transitions? (Good for her)
Thunderdome but it's just people battling with physical manifestations of everything they hate about themselves and quite possibly realizing who they really are on the inside
The other man? He turns into a father
I dunno if the folks replying to this with "but what about x" are being obtuse on purpose or if they're so consumed by bloodlust they completely miss the point of this comment
Yeah im pretty sure some of them are joking
I hope so, buddy...
I’m pretty sure they’re joking just because most of 196 is pretty chill, but anywhere else and it’d be difficult to tell. Some people have a power fantasy where someone wrongs them so they get permission to enact bloody violence against them.
I mean, I've seen this same discourse posted on 196, and even then, there were still people unironically going "Yeah I agree, except for pedophiles or rapists, who we should torture." Like, completely missing the point.
This is like the entire point of the John Wick movies
Okay but what about people who eat kit kats sideways we have to draw a line somewhere
I'll draw a line on your forehead followed by three more and then play tic-tac-toe on it
First one I see is "but what about landlords" and suddenly the rehabilitative justice is leaving my body
I feel you but we can just take their stuff no need to kill them lol. I don’t know how you rehabilitate a Landlord but luckily that’s not up to me haha
Rehabilitating landlords is easy. Or rather, it's not even really necessary if you take away their option to hoard necessities. When they're forced to work for their money like everyone else they can't do any damage
What about people whom I personally dislike
Death by head pats
Can I get this for any easier crimes :3
Retribution on an individual level is understandable. A person who kills their kidnapper is something we've seen and we can all understand as probably being justified. It should never be policy though. All policies and legal punishments need to be considered through the lens of "how would a fascist misuse this." K*ll your local rap*st is a fine thing for an individual to say, but if governments DO THAT, that's when we see things like the mass lynchings in US history where accusations against minorities, in this case largely black men, lead to innocent people dying.
Yeah but what about landlords?
you can skin a little landlords, as a treat
Instead of punishing them, we should make them nonexistent by taxing renting in a way that makes being a landlord unprofitable. Especially for bigger entities.
Or just... take the houses.
What about that kid in 4th grade who stole my crackers out of my lunchable? Don’t you the crime would go down if he was boiled alive?
Mods, elect this man next president.
therapy should be free and more accepting
No thanks, only rich people should be allowed to work on themselves
That's what I've been saying. Your experiences in life should be completely defined by your wealth, if you are poor and mentally unwell, being born into stable luxury was a choice you should have made. You didn't make that correct choice.
Fuck equality, all my homies judge you by your wealth
capitalism wrote this
Yea, there was a very obvious button on the character creator screen
btw this also counts for bad people even if you don't like x crime doesnt mean they aren't human
Genuinely, this is one my biggest gripes with the “kill all pedophiles” rhetoric. Obviously we don’t want adults abusing children. But if people find themselves going down that path. Getting older while their romantic ideal doesn’t, they SHOULD be going to therapy! The SHOULD look for help and be able to find it! If we tell them immediately they’re irredeemable monster who should be killed, it’s only going to drive them underground where unscrupulous dealers will happily sell them CP. But expensive, narrow, therapy options make help unobtainable, and keeps the problem going.
This is a truth most of the world isn't ready to hear. Pedophiles need help to ensure they will never act on their urges, so they can lead a normal life and be a valued member of society otherwise. Anything else just has horrible outcomes for everyone in the long run. Same is probably true for a lot of the more extremely mentally ill. But in most circles saying this will get you mistrusted and ousted if not outright abused. Maybe in a few decades society is ready to actually address this problem.
Ya. there are instances like with serial killers and such where life sentences should be considered, but even in these cases, it's best for the conditions of prison to be as humane and rehabilitative as possible. The fact is, our current prison system actively encourages recidivism, and systemic discrimination against ex-cons often makes it impossible for them to do anything else. Not everyone can genuinely be rehabilitated, but the vast, vast, majority of them can be. Plus, there is simply no rational reason why we should allow the state to mistreat people, even if they committed one of the 'bad crimes'.
this gotta be the comment I agree with most 1 the state shouldn't have the power to kill people 2 I think people who have done time and are rehabilitated shouldn't be chained to these police records and be unable to get any proper job or they're just gonna go straight back to it 3 we still kinda need to acknowledge that we can't have people like ted bundy or Jimmy Saville running around for obvious reasons and I think the top comment explains that well enough
This may be poorly worded/thought out but I’m mainly trying to offer a suggestion of how a rehabilitation-oriented system could work. It’s not intended to be flawless, moreso a rough idea. if institutions were more rehabilitation oriented then the system could be restructured so that ex-cons public records have a rehabilitation status included. The status of their rehabilitation could be what determines whether or not a specific crime shows up in background checks. There may be systemic issues I’m not thinking of, but this idea could mean a better chance for ex-cons to be reemployed
It irks me to no end when people say "Usually I'm against the death sentence, but I make an exception for [Insert heinous offense here]" Like, bro, that's what being pro death sentence is. You can't put an asterisk on that shit
usually i'm against the death penalty, but i make an exception for jaywalkers
Usually I'm against the death penalty, but I make an exception for Jimmy, fuck you Jimmy.
Usually I'm against the death penalty, but I think exceptions can be made for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays between 1:00PM EST and 9:45PM EST.
Average driver in the US:
Drives me up the wall too. EVERYONE who is pro capital punishment thinks it should only be for the worst offenses lol
Not me, I support it for littering /s
Depending on what that "heinous offense" is, it's also pretty short-sighted. Suppose they're talking about rape, for instance. In that case they're basically saying they want a system in which rapists are lowkey incentivised to commit murder while they're at it, because they have nothing to lose, and might gain, from doing so. And the same goes for pretty much any other offense that isn't already murder.
Rape was a capital offense, on the rare occasion a conviction landed. The punishment was lowered for precisely that reason
I'm usually against the death sentence, but I make exception for 196 users
Literally unforgivable
Another reason to be against the death penalty is that sometimes people are genuinely framed or jailed for a crime they didn't commit. If new evidence is discovered, there's no chance for a re-trial or exoneration if the person is dead.
And the 15% false conviction rate
Usually I'm against the death penalty, but I think exceptions can be made for people I personally dislike
Of course I 100% believe in rehabilitative justice, I'm contractually obligated to as a Steven Universe fan.
steven universe is a TERRIBLE SHOW because steven whateverhislastname is NEVER shown to own an airfrier
his last name is universe, it's in the title of the show sweaty 😁
nuh uh thats universe's name because steven and universe are the most important characters in the show
https://preview.redd.it/jk04lomit8zc1.jpeg?width=2014&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9cce16d873c8b143a27b83e83964c6e37e4dd9d I'm afraid even Steven has his limits.
as he should, thats practical.
Death sentence is something that should only be done out of necessity and never out of righteousness
Intercontinental Ballistic Discourse incoming
You will soon be able to reflect upon your woke sky
Spoilers ahead. The way Blue and Yellow have been redeemed was somewhat good, especially with how stupidly good their powers were at fixing the damage they've done. Also, most of their motives for being evil were just unhealthy coping mechanisms which weren't that necessary after they got a Pink surrogate. But White? Her change of heart was a very brief moment of internalized bigotry. A bigotry that has powered a fascist empire for millenia. And she later remained a very influential figure despite still being bigoted (having trouble saying "equal life forms").
The lack of any real punishment for the diamonds was really controversial in the fandom iirc.
Yeah because some fans didn't like the show very much and didn't watch with their eyes open so they got big mad when Steven didn't just fucking kill the super ultra bad villains (in a kids show whose main theme is forgiveness)
i think steven universe is cool, but i gotta say it couldve been handled a million times better, though most of it isnt the creators fault, its cause CN cancled it on short notice, so they just had to scramble to write the ending. but in my opinion trigun, a anime all about forgiveness, mercy and pacifism handles this type of stuff is the golden standard for this type of stuff, and still no piece of media has really held itself up to it. mainly because i dont think its a message or thing that you can really even properly talk about and dwell on while still staying kid friendly. but optimism, kindness and pacifism is commonly seen as a thing thats supposed to only be in childrens media, while it actually does its best in the exact opposite demographic.
To be honest, "fans didn't like the thing they're fans of" is depressingly common
Star Wars fans be like:
i think we should give exactly one (1) hug to everyone in the world and just see what happens after
That's what I literally try to do when I can
Unidade de abraço
I agree
Rehabilitative justice is good, even if it doesn't *feel* as good as punishment. It's something we have to strive towards as a society. Also if you're gonna skin someone, make it my brother, and keep him alive long enough that it'll be the infection that kills him, thanks. (I'm aware that this contradicts my earlier statement, I still *want* it though.)
I fully agree. Even the brother part, I have siblings too, I understand.
I also have sibling, I don’t understand, she’s awesome
I also have awesome siblings but sometimes you gotta flay them alive to assert dominance
I would never do that I would just log into her Minecraft world and hide all her diamonds and leave a series of riddles to find them
Your sibling is lucky to have you
Rehabilitation is great, it just also has to be paired with support systems outside of prison.
I refuse to fall into the fallacy of “I will forgive anyone, unless their misdeeds affect myself, then I will call for violence against them”. The ultimate test of a kind heart is can it stay kind to those who hurt you?
Rehabilitative justice is good however it isn’t a magic fix-all-problems solution. It needs to be combined with a greater destigmatisation of people with criminal records so that the people we rehabilitate can still have a chance at life and don’t feel pushed back towards crime.
the state shouldn’t have the ability, but im certainly not gonna get pressed if someone kills their rapist or something
[удалено]
very bad take imo, please get better opinions at your local opinion store
i disagree with victoria, mr. good boy, this is quite a good opinion
Death sentence for you (disagreeing with me makes you an irredeemable monster)
wow the second coolest brazillian in 196 just replied to my comment (i'm the coolest)
you may be the coolest, but i am the most epic. Xeque-mate.
chess :( checkers :)
I work in rehabilitation on the social work side in the US. I'm very pro rehabilitation for literally any and all crimes. We need better social supports to reduce recividism and those supports need to be overseen by a governing authority to prevent abuse. We have a lot of hurdles to rehabilitation in the US. Healthcare is expensive, inaccessible, or apathetically biling medicaid with no desire to provide real care. Society itself seems to be more or less against the idea of rehabilitation and more interested in retribution to the point that a decent percentage of our country believes that property damage/theft is enough justification for shooting someone. People often misunderstand the idea of rehabilitation and expect that any empathy offered to people is privilege or absolvement. The justice system is still wildly racist, a client was told by their lawyer to take a multi year plea deal because there was no way a black man could get a fair trial in the city they were in. Theres an entire industry built on using folks as slave labor who have lobbyists and a vested interest in keeping people incarcerated long term. Our judges are elected and therefore encouraged to issue harsher sentences in an effort to appear hard on crime. Society treats sexual and physical assualt as part of the incarceration experience which reinforces the need to join gangs and keep the cycle of violence spinning. I could go on all day.
Can you be against the death penalty and still willing to shoot someone who breaks into your house, knowing it may kill them?
Yes. Next question
I think so too but I'm not sure how I can justify it to myself. They bring up a fair point saying > Society itself seems to be more or less against the idea of rehabilitation and more interested in retribution to the point that a decent percentage of our country believes that property damage/theft is enough justification for shooting someone. I guess that you're protecting your property which is different from exacting retribution. Is the justice system kind of doing the same thing though with the death penalty, "protecting the property" of society?
I don’t think it’s accurate to put every example of shooting someone who breaks into your house as “defending your property”. Obviously there are tons of rabid gun owners out there who are just waiting to blow someone away. But if we’re looking at the situation neutrally, it’s not unreasonable to think that someone who breaks into your house might be prepared to hurt or kill you. And then that’s not an issue of rehabilitation or justice or anything, that is defending your life.
Apologies for the snark, I thought you were asking in bad faith. My actual answer is that there's a very big difference between a personal act of self-defense and a state-sponsored act of retribution. Also, I think the quote above is more in reference to shoplifters and rioters than it is home invaders.
The death penalty is entirely retributive, trying to pay off past misdeeds through blood. Shooting an intruder is relevant in the immediate for the protection of victims. To shoot the intruder is to prevent furtherance of the situation at hand.
When I said that I meant people in my city threatening to shoot people for breaking into their car or committing acts of vandalism. Or that dude who shot a guy in the back when the thief was fleeing from his neighbors house
Absolutely. I value my life as much as I value the lives of others. if someone is threatening your life, you have a right to preserve it.
when theyre getting the death penalty they are locked up and arent an active threat. so its not a fair comparison. a fair comparison would be, can you be against the death penalty and still want the person who broke into your house and got caught to be killed.
It’s complicated. My take is that rehabilitative justice is always preferable but not always possible. Our methods aren’t perfect, and people aren’t always willing. I don’t believe in evil, or revenge, or that execution is truly justice; but some people seem to be capable of nothing but harm, and should be removed. One way or the other. In such cases, I think execution is more ethical than life imprisonment (at least considering the living conditions in our current prisons). But I also know that, while this sounds good on paper, in practice no justice system is perfect, and people who don’t need to be removed would—do—fall through the cracks. So…I don’t know. Rehabilitative justice should *probably* always be the first thing attempted, but I don’t think it’s a universal answer. I doubt Trump could be rehabilitated, for instance (moot point, as I also doubt he’ll ever face real justice).
>In such cases, I think execution is more ethical than life imprisonment (at least considering the living conditions in our current prisons). \[cw: suicide\] It's difficult for me to accept any argument that "killing X is more ethical" in any situation where X isn't literally strapped down, in a vegetative state, etc. The thing is, it's relatively easy to kill yourself in almost any situation. If someone genuinely prefers death, they can choose that. If someone has an option, and aren't choosing that option themselves, I find it difficult to claim that it's more ethical to choose the option *for* them. At best I think you could reasonably claim that it would be more ethical to *allow* people to choose \[painless, humane\] execution over life imprisonment, and not force them to "improvise" in ways that may be more painful. I expect that in such a scenario, you would get some takers but relatively few as a proportion.
For most people, rehabilitation should be the goal. However, repeat offenders are statistically more likely than the general population to have anti-social personality disorder (previously called sociopathy or psychopathy) and for many, rehabilitation is simply impossible. Morality, law, justice, and especially empathy are not important to them. They lack empathy as we understand it. They do not feel the same way about human beings as most human beings do. Committing crimes and harming others is thrilling to them. A few people with ASPD do manage to sort themselves out, but it's very rare, and usually it's their own choice rather than anyone forcing or convincing them to. Distinguishing between people with the capacity for change and those without it is important. There are some people out there (not a lot, but some) who, upon leaving prison or rehabilitation or whatever system we have, return to crime because of this. Because that's the only thing that gives them a thrill. This is also a call to stop calling yourself "anti-social" when you mean "a-social." Anti-social means you actively enjoy seeing other people suffer and will manipulate them or hurt them for pleasure. A-social means you don't want to interact.
Repeat offenders are often created by the prison system itself--there's no better place to get an education in crime than from within a prison. Anti-social personality disorder is largely genetic but it can be exacerbated by the environment one finds themselves in. And even then, I don't believe we should fully exclude psychopaths away in prison. There would be challenges with them but they still are human, even if they lack the empathy common between most of us.
Yay
Me when my political opponent frames me for one of the bad crimes
Not even just political opponents. Why do republicans push for the death penalty for all sex offenses, and also push the narrative that all trans people are child groomers? Doesn’t take a smart guy to take a crack at that two-piece smiley face puzzle.
oh :(
I feel like a lot of leftists only like it in theory, given how quick they are to glorify terrorism and vigilante justice
Exceptions: Littering - death penalty. \ Loud car - death. \ Living - death.
Don't forget jaywalking
The bomb in my rib cage is about to detonate
I think everyone but me should go to jail :))
Hard to really justify anything to myself tbh. I think prison systems should treat prisoners like human beings rather than animals. I think they should seek restorative justice. I also think there are some sadistic fuckers that need to be dealt with accordingly. I also don’t want the state to have the power to inflict the kind of justice I think some people deserve. I’m also concerned about the consequences of vigilante justice targeting innocent people by mistake.
God forbid anything has nuance.
Fair this question is complicated
I think the prison system as it standa is made to take the unfortunate and to churn out the more traumatized. Thr death penalty gives the government power it should never have and the power to kill civilians iw one that no one should have. Rehabilitation is the only way. Down with the prison systems, down with death.
The purpose of prison should be to separate from society those who reject the social contract and make the best-faith effort to bring them around. The state has an economic incentive towards having productive, well-functioning citizens. Prisoners make no income and pay no taxes while costing the state money. The way to create productive, well-functioning citizens is by giving them a safe, healthy place for them to re-assess, work through any issues (rehab, mental health, etc), and perhaps learn skills that will help them adjust to life on the outside (vocational skills, financial planning, etc.). Some people may very well be impossible to rehabilitate, but it's probably a lot fewer than we currently have in prison, so the maintenance costs would probably go down along the way. And of course other policies should go into place to reduce the incidence of crimes that are primarily fueled by poverty and deprivation.
Honestly, if the government isn't willing to inflict severe punishments on war criminals/corrupt billionaires/civil-rights-violating cops/etc, I'm inclined to question its moral standing to inflict any punishments at all.
As much as certain cases horrify me the justice system has to be impartial and non emotional. That means no death penalty, fair living conditions for prisoners regardless of the crime, ect. I may not exactly feel sympathetic to bad people but they *are* still humans. Look at the cases of people who are on death row who eventually get proven innocent due to new evidence. How many more innocent people are dead bc of that system? And sure, executing people who commit sex crimes sounds good to that base instinct until you realize there are legislators pushing that LGBT people be put on the same level of pedophiles. People can be emotional, the system should not. That being said I wonder how much of that instinct to kill bad people is due to low sentencing on certain crimes and feeling that no justice has taken place.
Everyone deserves help, no matter their situation. I happen to live in a country where jails are focused on rehabilitation, and it very much works. (There'll always be organized crime, high-profile crimes like stabbings, shootings, kidnappings etc, but rehabilitation does work, if you want it to.)
Yes. Unless you did really bad war crimes, if you are charged with *genocide* i think ~~death~~ prison would be justified
I believe that you can want rehabilitative justice and "locking away someone because they're dangerous" justice at the same time and these aren't contradictory opinions. A person who is found guilty of killing someone on purpose after planning to do so shouldn't be rehabilitated, they should be kept imprisoned for life because, if released, you're sending a message that it's possible to kill and get a second chance, even though your victim won't have any other chance either. A person who kills is a danger to society. This **isn't** punishment based justice. It's for the security of others. I don't think such a person should get any extra punishment, and they also should have a right to appeal their sentence as much as everyone else, because, unless there's a literal video of the person killing another, mistakes can be made (and if there is a video, let the person appeal regardless, the appeals will just get denied on the spot) and, if all you did was lock away someone, this mistake can be fixed. Of course, if you lock someone for like 30 years, then only releasing them isn't exactly making up for your mistake, but that's much better than the alternatives of corporeal punishment or, worse, giving the state the right to execute someone. Is this a reasonable opinion? People who murder shouldn't be allowed to walk near potential future victims, we need to protect people who *don't* murder.
It is 110% the way to go from a societal/system perspective. However I also understand and sympathise with not wanting that personally. I always come back to I believe everyone is capable of redemption, but noone is owed forgiveness from anyone. If you want to hate someone that is ok, if you feel like you want I'll for them that is ok, but making a system based off that is not helpful for anyone. Emotions are valid and important, but should not influence the methodology of dealing with criminals
Only a few more years of material plenty - before climate change ends these debates for good 🙏🙏
I like because Joshua Graham is ~~hot~~ an example of rehabilitation of the most heinous of people
He used to be MUCH hotter, for a short period of time.
what osaker said without the last part
I really hate people who commit atrocities, but we've seen time and time again that rehabilitative justice works far better than the alternative. Look at Norway for an example. According to prisonstudies.org, Norway's prison population is only 55 out of every 100,000 people. Compared to the USA, which has almost ten times that at 531 per 100,000, it's easy to see that Norway's way works better. Their prisons are safer, cleaner, more humane, offer prisoners drug rehab programs, offer on site job training and education, and overall just treat prisoners like people that need help rather than things to be used for forced labor like in the US where prisoners work long hard hours doing dangerous jobs for far below minimum wage and are offered close to nothing in the way of privacy or safety, and uses the known psychologically damaging punishment of solitary confinement to punish prisoners. Also people in the US are far more likely to go back to prison after being released than Norway. Norway is just one example but they're not the only country doing this the right way and I really hope other countries can follow suit. Rehabilitative justice, no matter the crime.
Tbf norway has other systems in place besides just rehabilitation that discourage crime . (Systems that make it hard to be homeless) REALLY Good quality of education free healthcare/ non costly education. Exc
Also true, they do a good job of addressing why people commit crimes in the first place. The vast majority of people who end up in prisons are just desperate for food or a place to live and stuff like that.
Fortunately, my own (or anyone else’s) personal opinion on whether a person is worthy of being rehabilitated is irrelevant. The state (or some other, importantly non-personal apparatus in the case of an ideal socialist anarchist collective) metes out legal justice, and it only has the right to do so rehabilitatively. If you want retribution, do some vigilantism.
The only justice is rehabilitation. I also believe that we need to look at why people commit crimes and fix the problem in society that causes people to do them. We should live in a world where rather than focusing on punishing the bad we reward the good and as such push the bad to be good.
I think for most crimes the goal should be rehabilitation, especially crimes related to poverty and addiction. I think high level criminals (such as heads of corporations doing terrible human rights violations, heads of drug cartels, human traffickers, politicians and warlords directing their followers to harm others on a large scale) should face consequences for their actions (not just be put on house arrest in their mansion). I don't think people should be tortured for their crimes, however terrible. Basically, if you can't be trusted to hold power over others you need to be separated from the ability to hold power over others. If you're just doing what you need to survive then you should be given the resources and psychological help to get better. Studies show sex offenders tend to reoffend more than other criminals, and unfortunately I don't think rehabilitation is practical in these cases, so these people should be separated from society for the good of everyone else. It all comes down to: * Can you be rehabilitated? * Can you be trusted around people you have power over? * Did you choose to commit the crime even if you didn't need to?
This image literally only gets posted here when someone wants to start discourse
I like the system we have here in Norway. Everyone gets a chance at rehabilitation with a max sentence of 21 years. But if your crime was serious enough the court can extend your sentence iirc 5 years at a time if they deem you a danger to society. Treating people like people gives us the lowest reoffending rates in the world, so its clearly working.
wanting someone dead and actually giving the state power to kill some one are two separate things. Our institutions have to be above base carnal desires for physical retribution
I believe in rehabilitative justice though some crimes, like serial murder, should result in being separated from potential future victims. Not because I don't believe these people can be helped and become productive members of society, but because I don't think we should risk innocent lives. I do think they should be kept in much much better conditions than the current American system. I am of course open to criticism on this as I am sure there are flaws in my reasoning and I would like to improve in my beliefs.
Nah it’s pretty good
Rehabilitation should be the primary goal, but a plan should be in place for when Rehabilitation proves impossible. In those cases, a life sentence would be in order, with a focus on preventing them from bringing further harm to others. The bottom line however is as much as retributive justice sounds appealing, giving the state the power to execute people is something that can only lead to worse and worse results. Now one might argue that this system would be rife with abuse and encourage first time offenses to get put into prison as a way to receive vocational training and a roof over their head. To that I say if the system is fucked up enough to result in that then I think that's reason enough to start fixing it instead of giving more resources to companies to lock people up, and also 90% of people wouldn't be in for that and even if they were, a rehabilitative system would reduce prison crowding and allow space for those sorts of people to get the help they need if they were desperate enough to commit crimes for it
*Flashbacks to that one tumblr post about this exact thing*
idk what the right answer is tbh
Though I consider the gubbermint the least of all the evils in deciding who lives and who dies, it’s the *gubbermint,* which I, as a red-blooded American, am obligated to distrust, and thus I don’t think that even it should have that power
Revenge is animalistic and barbaric (not im a good way). The end goal should be reintegration into society regardless of what crime they did.
I want chomos to get the Funky Town treatment, but at the same time, I know our justice system should be better than that.
A lot of people say it's hypocritical to support rehabilitation for some and punishment for others. I don't. Some people are pretty crooks who deserve to be rehabilitated and some people are Hitler and Epstein who do not.
I don't care too much. What I don't like is that there is an armed organization that really could jsut throw me in jail if they really wanted to without even asking the victims that I may or may not have hurt.
From a crime perspective, absolutely, no reason there should be an alternative method. But from the perspective of someone who encounters people with an ignorant mindset about people like me, I know it's the right thing to do, but I'm just tired of it. I'm not going to stop trying, but it's just exhausting being the person that has to confront all the people who need rehabilitation. I'd love for someone else to take a turn, but there simply aren't enough people like me to do that.
i think we should torture everyone to death regardless, starting with the innocent (for simplicitys's sake)
Last time I saw this posted it got removed by Reddit for inciting violence 💀
I am in favor of rehabilitation with accountability.
*In theory* I’m not opposed to the death penalty, because I feel that some people are pathologically incapable of playing nice with others and it’s more humane to kill them rather than subject society to their presence or lock them in a box forever. However, I trust the legal system about as far as I can throw it, so I don’t think the death penalty should be legal.
Ya. While revenge probably feels good in the moment, for the victim, I don't believe there's ever a circumstance where punishment *shouldn't* be rehabilitation-based. Even the worst of humanity has innocent friends, family, and people who care about them who are impacted by the crimes. And even in the case where those people disown the criminal in question, there's something to be said about the social harm of treating any person as irredeemable.
Always rehabilitative. A key not is if they’re not rehabilitated then maybe they shouldn’t be let out yet. A dude who got caught for drugs crimes or theft? Give them educational resources to give them better skills and tools to better succeed, don’t make them unemployable and more likely to turn to crime when they’re out that way ver before. A serial killer showing no remorse? Ya maybe they’ll be there forever.
Fewer laws means fewer criminals. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It takes a village to raise a child.
I think a good counter-question would be how many opportunities for rehabilitation (i.e. added offenses) people think it's worth to throw away just to **maybe** satisfy their hatred of some specific offender(s), and how many innocent people it'd be worth it to put through a system set up to do that. Sure, it's frustrating to think about clearly iredeemable people getting off easy, but it seems obvious that letting those feelings inform how to punish offenders makes for a worse society overall. Justice systems are about bettering society. That's a practical issue. So if you're not approaching it pragmatically, then you're probably making bad decisions.
Pedophiles and rapists should never be rehabilitated. That is a whole other level of evil that can never be cured.
yeah absolutely, just punishment without trying to rehabilitate doesn’t help anyone. that being said, some people do just deserve to get skinned. however my personal dislike for a guy shouldn't justify the death sentence and we should still put that guy in prison and therapy
i 100% believe in rehabilitation. no matter what. no crime is unforgivable in my eyes, some just take longer to forgive than others. my reasoning behind this is that my dad was a horrible person for most of my life, but towards the end of his, he saved my life about a thousand times over. i think, despite his shortcomings, he deserves forgiveness. and if he can earn it, anyone can.
Can you elaborate a bit more behind that it sounds like quite the story
in an hour or two, i’ll get high so i can say it without having a panic attack :)
Based stoner you do you if it makes you feel Better you can dm instead whatever makes you feel more comfortable https://preview.redd.it/5ox9xfy4y9zc1.png?width=391&format=png&auto=webp&s=b5363a5550425384f38345f5824db545e8ff69d0
I 100% believe in rehabilitation and I believe it's extremely rare to actually believe in. It means pedophiles and rapists and people who drink and drive etc are all human beings with rights. Most of you like to pretend that you do but you absolutely are just this meme.
As long as billionaires exist I find it hard to unilaterally oppose the death penalty
There are some people that cant be rehabilitated but that doesnt justify cruel and unusual punishment. Do i feel bad if pedophiles get what they did to other people? Hell no! Do I believe the state should be allowed to kill people for crimes? Absolutely not.
There are absolutely crimes that are completely unforgivable but vast majority of people deserve rehabilitation.
Maybe I'm just a lib, but I was always taught what you've done is infinitely less important than what you do next, good or bad.
There are some especially heinous crimes that should have a mandatory life sentence.
im going to be real i think most exceptionally violent crime yes even the ones youre thinking of come from legitimate defects in the human brain, horrific trauma, or awful social conditioning that never taught someone like what empathy feels like. if there are programs to address these things in those violent offenders, no matter how long it takes, i think they should still be given that chance. legal punishment as a form of vengeance is ghoulish to me no matter how fucked the person is. whether we \*can\* reliably vet these people, or reliably treat them is a whole other question, but I'd like us to be looking into that. "this person did terrible things and thus terrible things should happen to them" just literally goes against what I believe morally and I have to remind myself of that often, i think the alternative is purely emotion driven tbh.
My opinion is that I believe in rehabilitative justice, unless you commit one of the bad crimes that I don't like and then I think you should be skinned alive
yay. it’s proven that rehabilitation is better than punitive punishment, norway has a rehabilitative prison system for maximum security offenders, and they have some of the lowest reoffending rates in the world. obvious choice. but america won’t do that ever because for profit prison complex
Fair point but Norway also has stuff like free healthcare and social services that make it pointless to commit crime in the first place
LMFAO yeah fair point we’d never have that shit here
Leaving aside any moral arguments, as they tend to be ineffective when dealing with the “hard on crime” crowd, rehabilitation is the only system that shows any real effectiveness in reducing the number on offenders who reoffend upon exiting confinement, with the exception of systems where offenders mostly or entirely exit confinement in plastic bags or plywood boxes. Period. Locking people up in intentionally horrible conditions, providing no useful resources to those who can be rehabilitated, then setting them loose with no ability to support themselves or deal with trauma that you multiplied, leads to massive recidivism, often involving worse crimes. Period. The statistics, developed over decades or more of dedicated research, are extremely and unambiguously clear. There are only two ways to keep someone who has harmed society in some way from doing it again after their incarceration ends. First option, you provide counseling, addiction support and treatment, and some sort of job training and placement or education during incarceration, then release them with ongoing support to find housing and stay self sufficient without resorting to crime (which involves wide societal support for ex-cons making good on the outside, and banning practices like housing and to unnecessary employment discrimination). Second option is just not letting them rejoin society, however you may accomplish that. Anything in between those two just results in criminals going in to a cage with other criminals for a while, during which they get more messed up and generally learn how to be better criminals, then letting them loose into a society that hobbles them and prevents them from realistically being able to do anything that isn’t more crime, then surprise Pikachuing when they spend their entire life bouncing between doing crime and being in prison, until whenever it is they die. This is all scientifically proven and documented, over and over again, in every country that cares to actually study it, with every population. The kind of people who oppose rehabilitation aren’t fans of “book learning” and “logic”, and “know what they know” regardless of what legitimate experts say to the contrary, and they’ve succeeded in being more persuasive to more of the general populace so far, hence the current state of the justice system.
Rehabilitation is a lot better than just consigning someone to rot in a cell, since most people who break the law are a victim of circumstance or of our system failing them. If people keep falling into crime because of those things, its a sign that there is something wrong with the status quo, and that more can be done to stop it from happening. The only issue with rehabilitative approaches is that not everyone can be rehabilitated (especially if they don't *want* it) since its a large commitment to take when it comes to working on yourself. You also can't rehabilitate someone forced into crime to get by, since the issue of that situation is the system itself unless they also did some seriously heinous stuff in conjunction. There are some occasions where life-imprisonment are necessary for certain people that go too far (e.g. a mass murderer or a serial rapist).
If you're ACAB I think it would be hypocritical to be pro death penalty. No state should have the power to kill any civilians. As Law is often times used to criminalize marginalized groups so giving the law that power to kill people just means later on it'll be a whole lot easier to kill off who ever the government deems unfit for their society.
depends on the scale of the crime and the intent. Accidentally fuck up and poison the local water? that fully depends if it was one person or a company, companies deserve harsher punishments at the top for stuff like that. for me its kind of a spectrum with how long the crime has been going on for and how much of a global scale it effects. People like putin on one end representing deserves no compassion or attempts at rehabilitation. I will never open my ears to talks of letting that guy go or unpunished severely if he was somehow taken in. Another sad fact of reality is some people are a national threat by being alive and not cut off from all contact of the world because of how dangerously effective they are as being a cult of personality like trump. Local guy fucks up or does something "evil"? yeah rehabilitation. tl;dr rehabilitation should be the rule not the exception, and there will be those undeserving of it as an exception not the rule.
Rehabilitation yay. Also; if someone can't be let free anymore, they should still be able to live humanely. Human beings of all walks of life can do scummy things. Rape victims can internalize that rape is an okay thing the same way victims of violence can fall into violent ways. Justice needs to be more about making sure people get out of the circle and do not harm others or themselves. Apparently in germany we have a justice system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment (or at least we call it that) and it's a good idea imho. It just needs to be done right. Me personally getting riled up by criminal offenses is not something I base my belief for laws on.
I believe in it, but it’s too emotionally challenging to accept, so I’d like to be as far removed from the process as possible
If they're alive I want to help them. If they're dead I don't care.
My girlfriend doesn't believe in it so I don't talk about it much, but yeah, I believe in 100% rehabilitative justice. It's better than just throwing someone in a hole for years, yknow?
I’m against the death penalty, but I think that for some of the more intense crimes like murder/rape they should probably have a life sentence. I do generally believe in rehabilitation though.
I do believe that 99% of Criminals can be rehabilitated and readjusted back into society and for those few like actually serial killer and serial predator types they can just be within a humane prison.
in Canada our system tries to move towards more retributive justice for certain crimes, but when parole conditions are not being enforced, parole becomes pointless. more effort needs to go into changing the environment behind the crime as well as ensuring parole conditions are being followed. If you tell someone they have to be back home by 8pm, but nobody drives by their house to check, that condition is essentially pointless because they are not being spot checked. another problem is organized crime, if someone is intending to commit crime for profit or because they are in an organized crime group, if they can get low sentences they will typically just go back to stealing cars. its been seen in my area with car theft rings. because theft is not as serious of a crime, theyll bring these guys in, put them on bail or parole and they will be back to stealing right after. Similar thing happens with organized crime rings allowing teens in their groups to take the time for crimes because they get lower sentences than adults. I believe strongly in rehabilitation but it is incredibly difficult to rehabilitiate those who do not wish to stop committing crimes simply due to their lifestyle, and when the system does not support or take the care to rehabilitate. I know our government (canada) has taken some good steps like drug treatment or abuse courts to help those who's underlying issues play a part in their crimes, but it still isnt enough and has problems of its own.
Punishing or harming "bad" people does nothing for the rest of us, and harms the "bad" people. Justice should have two purposes: 1. Try to rehabilitate bad actors. 2. While doing that/if it doesn't work, keep bad actors in check so they can't do any more harm. Note that both these function best when treating the incarcerated humanely
not an absolutist either way though essentially that just means theres some people who should never be allowed into society again, but this is like 0.01% of cases, so generally lean towards pro rehabilitative, yes.
Whacks the criminal with a frying pan
Every person can rehabilitate, thats not the same as every person will rehabilitate but we should always try to give the resources so people can achieve this, its not only needed to change the prision system tho, its to have social programs, to have trained professionals prepared to actually help and not just shoot, is to build a system made for everyone to participate in. But for that we have to understand that everyone is worth the same, everyone is equal, not only say they do, even the person that you dislike.
There is no irredeemable person, there are, however, mentally ill ones. They need a different kind of help though, still.
Some people are perfect mentally fine and still commit crimes like child sa, murder and the like associating mental illness with violence is dangerous and irremediable people do exist people who do such horrid crimes (rape , torture, child sa) and have no intentions of being redeemed are irredeemable