Should the main goal of prisons be to rehabilitate or punish?

Question

I need information on this topic as well as opinions. I REALLY need stories of how rehabilitation is unsuccesful and examples of recidivism. I'm completely on the punish side. I believe rehabilitation does not work. Opinions are welcomed!

Answer 1

punish

Answer 2

Rehabilitation can best be described as a theory or a goal. Statistical data on recidivism has always worked to the disadvantage of the rehab crowd. Where is all the data showing the success of rehabilitation? I've never seen any. This should be a red flag as the pro-rehab people are usually liberal and liberals LOVE studies and statistics.

Because the data cannot confirm their theories on rehabilitation they try to convince you of their effectiveness by citing individual success stories that tug at your heart. They then hype that success to convince you that they are on to something. You can bet that if the data bore out huge rates of success we would be reading about the massive as opposed to the individual successes.

The fact is, widespread rehabilitation success doesn't exist. Show me the successful data on rehabilitating sex offenders. There isn't any. "Shock" camps don't work and neither do Drug Courts." DARE programs are also coming under fire for their lack of pr oven results. But try suggesting scrapping these programs and watch as your labeled bigoted, intolerant, uneducated, uncaring or privileged. Name calling is the libs most effective tool.

There is an old lawyer joke that goes something like this: If the law is on your side "bang" on the law, if the facts are on your side "bang" on the facts, if neither are on your side "bang" on the desk.

The rehab crowd bangs on the desk. Rehabilitation starts from within. You cannot force it on anyone. I don't know the statistic on this but I will bet a million bucks the the vast majority of persons who have sought rehabilitation were arrested first.

Answer 3

I don't have statistics, but you will find that rehabilitation does not make for a very good argument as you seem to already know. However, you didn't mention the other option which is the deterrent effect it has on the rest of society. How much crime is NOT committed by individuals who are deterred from it because of the possible consequence of prison? How many individuals commit a less extreme crime (robbery w/OUT murder) because certain crimes carry a heavier consequence? Prisons serve the purpose of reminding us why the rest of us choose NOT to commit crimes. You could make the argument that rehabilitation is that much MORE unsuccessful because the threat of prison serves as a successful deterrent to most of the population, so it would stand to reason that if the prospect of prison didn't stop you from committing that crime....rehabilitating someone who has already faced that "fear" isn't likely...they are predisposed to NOT live within the confines of a lawful society....so punishment is actually just a bonus resulting from the need to separate them from the rest of us.

Answer 4

A good center and combination of the two.
Rehabilitate with punishment.
Punishment will reahbilitate.
You know the cruel way to make a dog stop peeing in the house, (rub his nose in the pee, it's really mean), I think it works the same way, that's a punishment, thus that rehabilitates.
Make any sense?

I also think that the punishment should fit the crime, like child molestors and murderers should get more time in jail, if jail is the punishment the longer the worse the crime; the longer the punishment THUS rehabilitation.

Answer 5

Most convicts in prison are not there to be rehabilitated. Most of them it's like a day back on the school grounds. Some (a small percentage) of convicts do get rehabilitated and you have to wonder is it because they wanted to change or they hated prison and didn't want to go back? I would think that if they were punished in prison the prison's wouldn't have so many in there. Our society is to soft in it's punishment. Our form or punishment is a joke.

Answer 6

I would have to say both depending on the severity of the crime. If a person has raped and hurt a small child I dont think any rehabilitation is going to truely help. That also goes for the Rapest and the person who murders. They need sever punishment for their life in prison.
Now the person who has committed robery without harming people , yes that person can be rehabilitated.
So I would have to say truely depends on the severity of the crime in which the person committed.

Leave thumbs up or down please

Answer 7

Punish them all, especially hard on the violent criminals.

We should take a lesson from the Russians on this one.

Just check the repeated offenses of nearly every robbery and shooting suspect to see that rehab does not work. These guys are on the street following 10 convictions (possibly 100 or more crimes) and they may still be under 25 years old. It is time to get tough on crime. If you don't commit the crime, you have nothing to worry about (Are you listening Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?). This is not about race (for those who wish to use that "card"), but about protecting the innocent and punishing those who are a menace to society.

Answer 8

Punish, child molestors recidivism rate is nearly 100%. Can't rehabilitate those kiddie thumpers. Punish them. They should be thrown under the jail.

Answer 9

They claim rehabilitation, but they don't even attempt to rehabilitate a single prisoner. So basically they're there to be punished yet that doesn't help them or society either. I'd say try to rehabilitate.

Answer 10

In my opinion I feel that the prison system should do both. Example: If you put a drug user in prison solely to punish him/her, then as soon as they get out they will be back to their old ways. However, if while they are being punished you rehabilitate the user to be a useful member of society, then when they get out chances are that they won't be a recidivist.

Answer 11

Punish