Why do many liberals want to "rehabilitate" criminals to fit into society rather than protect...?

Question

society from criminals?

Answer 1

I'm a conservative and I believe criminals need some form of rehabilitiation while in prison. You see, the problem is that they eventually get out of prison.

If you don't give them something better to learn during their time behind bars, you will only be teaching them to become better criminals when they get out.

Answer 2

I think liberals tend to be more idealistic than their conservative counterparts.

Ideally, a person guilty of a criminal act partly because they are born into deprivation, or lack education, or suffer abuse, or discrimination, can be rehabilitated, get a second chance, and lead a productive life. Sometimes, even if the crime is a terrible one, rehabilitation and integration back into society actually works.

The problem is, many, many criminals have a background as described, and rehabilitation, more often than not, doesn't work, or doesn't work for long.

Idealists feel that is because the system fails, that society should keep trying to fix it, and to fix the problems that lead people to become criminals in the first place. They feel that is one of the hallmarks of an enlightened society.

Their opposite numbers feel criminals should be locked up and the keys thrown away. As with most extremes, something in the middle is probably better than either.

Perhaps when our society is enlightened enough to be able to fairly interpret its laws on a case by case basis without the next case along being able to unjustly exploit the precendent, we'll make some real headway in combatting crimes, both before and after they are committed.

Answer 3

I am going to answer this question with another question. If the so called "liberals" wanted to rehabilitate people, then why wouldn't they send drug users to therapy and not to prison at all? Drug addiction is a disease and to view it as a crime is draconian so if the liberals truly believed in rehabilitation they would at least try to change the laws as to not imprison drug users. Right? It would solve the problem of overcrowding, not to mention saving a fortune for the taxpayers. Then those left in prison, the violent ones, could then get some sort of real rehabilitation if the liberals really wanted that. They just don't. They want power just like the conservatives. That is the problem and that is why your quesion is not valid in the first place. Sorry.

The system is flawed. I think all incumbents, liberals and conservatives, should go.

I spent a few days in Orange County jail and witnessed beatings and torture by the guards. California is about as liberal as you can get and look at how they "rehabilitate." You don't rehabilitate anyone with beatings and torture unless that is what the liberals in California call rehabilitation. I tend to disagree with that premise.

Answer 4

What would you have the society to do, humanely euthanatize all criminals? Put all offenders behind bars until the end of their natural lives? What realistic choice is there but give people another chance? I do believe there are many good people who made the wrong choice at one point in their lives, but who seriously repent and regret, as well as others who have committed crimes because of a good enough reason to overwhelm their good sense. I am a peaceful person, but there are many things that may lead me to commit a crime. These people deserve another chance.
The main problem is that the systems used in rehabilitation do not answer the real issues. Prison should be a place where inmates are given the chance to improve themselves, not just endless time spent waiting.

Answer 5

Right now the U.S. has the most people in prison of any other nation in the world both in terms of sheer numbers and percentage of population, more than China, Russia, more than Iraq had, more than Iran. We have the longest average sentences of any nation in the world. Believe it or not, WE are the harchest police state on the planet!! Is this a good thing? You decide, felons in our system are marked for life, they can't get jobs, can't get credit, can't rent apartments, but they still need to eat, so what do they do? They go back to crime!! DUH!! So we have a 92% redidivism rate, surprised?? And then we say; "see, once a criminal, always a criminal!" And then the repgnicans make the sentences even harsher, thump their chests and say "Look how tough we are on crime!!" Smoking a joint is a felony in my state, so was oral sex until 1998! So somebody could have been experimenting with dope or oral sex and we pre-fire them from every job they will ever get and throw them out of every apartment that they will ever try to get. Smart? Or is there a better way? Is there hope for redemption, especially since some of the laws people were convicted for (especially here in Utah) were unconstitutional. But I know a woman who was convicted for oral sex when cops saw her with a lover in a car when she was 18, she's 50 now and still can't get a job, is that justice?

Answer 6

Prison is basically a place for people who don't get along well with others. People who go there for a time and then are released, were not rehabilitated. They already knew how to get along with others. (You have to learn it by the time you are around 20.) They just pay their penalty, and leave, and then decide what's next, how much they mind another penalty or not.
No rehabilitation is involved. Those who DON'T already know how to basically get along well with others are not going to learn it in prison.

"Liberals" don't understand this.
People who go to prison once and then make something of their lives do it because of something they learned BEFORE becoming an adult. Not because of something that "rehabilitated" them in prison. It's as simple as that.

The stakes are high when you are young. Especially where there are few people around to be encouraging of the person's future.

To constantly pretend otherwise is foolish and cruel to the younger generation.

Answer 7

if you slipped and displayed redeemable traits from with in your prison cell what would suit you ..........................................
or one rehabilitated is better than serving a punitive sentence and released with aggressively evolved anti social tendencies worse than before anyone actually know the difference between justice and vengeance or how to incorporate social responsibility for each individual in the framework of justice of course if u talk to people in authority with criminal justice degrees u run into the catch 22 idea they say no chance for rehabilitation just look at the rates of recidivism I say what do u expect without researching the effective means of rehabilitation.... just goes in circles oh and by the way I'm not liberal left winger or democrat just a citizen if we lock u and every one else up and throw away the key would u be happy law of jungle perhaps?

Answer 8

It depends on the situation. In many Man-slaughter cases, for instance, the "criminal," is just somebody who accidentally did something stupid. We're not really protecting anybody by keeping them in jail, as the chances of them reoffending are slim to none. On the side of the spectrum, we have actual murderers who show no remorse, but are still released once their time is served. We call them rehabilitated, because they finished their sentence, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are. The system is flawed, admittedly, but it's what we have.

Answer 9

Not all 'criminals' pose a true danger to society.

Although there are some people that are incorrigible by nature, most people convicted of crimes do have the ability to change and lead productive lives.

Please be careful when judging the convicted person.
It doesn't always mean that that person is dangerous or detrimental to our society.

Answer 10

Too many liberals are criminals? Hmmm.

Prison is not for rehabilitation it's for punishment. A criminal can only "rehab" themselves if they want too. Prison is not going to do it for them.