2007-03-17 23:25:24 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Prisons should be for punishment. They did the crime, usually repeatedly and they should pay the price. We as tax payers have to deal with ridiculous law suits over green beans being served three times a week or not having a big enough color T.V. in the activity room. Since when did prison become summer camp. Enough is enough. Give the prisoners back their hammers and shovels and let them break rocks or make license plates. They need to pay a debt to society NOT the other way around. If you think someone needs to be rehabilitated be there for them when they get out of prison and open the door for them, but I'm not going to anymore. Been there, done that and they cleaned me out including all of the grocery's I'd just bought. The lady said that she wanted to be caught as she was more comfortable in jail because she didn't have to work, had free medical and dental, and could sleep when ever she felt like it. Nice commentary on today's society isn't it.
2007-03-17 23:49:40 · answer #1 · answered by wezy53154 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was a fantastic article in the NYTimes a few months ago about how rehabilitation in prisons is being seen in a new light. This time it is the religious right that is really looking toward rehabilitation.
2007-03-17 23:31:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Initially for rehabilitation in the hope that society can be saved the cost of a person's future crimes.
I believe that those thought capable of rehabilitation should be in separate establishments to those held primarily for punishment. More time and money should be spent on rehabilitation as this pays society dividends.
Those persistent offenders who are a burden on society should be sent to labour camps with harsh conditions to minimise their financial burden and deter others.
I should like to see the return of the death penalty for traditional capital crimes committed by those who have no potential value to society.
2007-03-17 23:45:44 · answer #3 · answered by Clive 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both!
If someone has poor education and/or job skills and is released without programs to help him/her get a job, then they will be right back robbing and stealing or whatever got them in there in the first place.
I just went on a prison tour last week at a prison outside of Columbus Ohio.
The warden said that the recidivism rate drops to near zero with all the educational programs they have for the inmates.
Now, THATS what I want to hear!
2007-03-17 23:34:57 · answer #4 · answered by Tumbleweed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
prisons should be for rehabilitation. I have therefore carefully pondered Lotus Sutra, my own heritage of 3/4 of property of the house from my uncle predicted in the Lotus Sutra, merits of the preacher and condemnation for the breaker of the Law.
I think it is about the same person. Buddha was so compassionate in the Lotus Sutra to give punishment of 1/4 and reward for 3/4 of the sutra. it means that one person has to suffer for his evil deeds in order to become rewarded for his good deeds.
In society too many people are good but not so good: they are evil, but not so evil. Therefore, there is chance for such people, as me, to become respected persons when once they will suffer the evil recompense for their bad karma.
Buddha can make good person out of evil person because he discerned bit of human nature even in criminal person. Therefore, Lotus Sutra can cure the incurable and change the karma and help even the evil people. No other sutra do that and I think that only by applying this sutra the society will become truly human and give second chance to prisoners.
2007-03-17 23:37:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both you get rehabilitated when you are in there being punished for the crime you commit
2007-03-17 23:28:21 · answer #6 · answered by Mary O 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the offense committed.
Punishment should be for murderers or rapists regardless with no acceptions at all...Chuck them in a cell & let them rot!!
For other offenses like robbery or arson they should recieve an option of rehabilitation but again, it depends on the seriousness of the offense.
Why should tax payers pay for rehab for a criminal that doesnt deserve anything
2007-03-17 23:31:22 · answer #7 · answered by kriskros54 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Punishment for severe crimes and rehab for less severe- but with an extreme emphasis on repaying the coummunity through constructive social labours NOT tax-funded cable TV, NOT community college, NOTHING but doing hard labour and hard time (if it suits the crime).
2007-03-17 23:30:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is a difficult question, but i think it is both. most crime is done
by people who are not as educated as they should be. so sending
them to prison is a form of telling them that what they did is wrong
and then teaching them skills so that they would end up in jail again.
2007-03-17 23:34:26 · answer #9 · answered by K.B. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
punishment for severe crimes and rehabilitation for small crimes
2007-03-17 23:28:20 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋