Suppressing the symptom is good enough.
2007-11-03 05:29:56 · 13 answers · asked by Lou B 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
False, on so many levels! Putting a young person in jail puts him automatically into a school for criminals. He learns from his cellmates how to commit more serious crimes more effectively. 9 times out of 10, he'll be back within a year after he gets out.
For some, jail is a more secure form of life, since they get three squares and a roof over their heads, which was not true out of jail.
The overwhelming majority of prisoners share certain characteristics, mainly illiteracy and other educational deficiencies. Unless these are cleared up, they will keep returning to jail because they are released into the same conditions they leave. And educational programs in prisons currently get less money than any other program.
There also needs to be an aftercare program that helps them get and keep jobs and places to live. Otherwise, they will reoffend from necessity.
I'll get lots of thumbs down on this, but they will be from people who want a kneejerk morality which does not solve the problem but actually makes it worse.
2007-11-05 00:03:24 · answer #1 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False
2007-11-03 12:50:47 · answer #2 · answered by Corey Adcock 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The history of putting law breakers in jail does not fix the problem. Most people that ends up in jail starts out has teens and then it becomes a way of life. Its rare that first time jail sentences are issued to people who are well in their adult years. Police that arrest law breakers will tell you they see a lot of repeat offenders. The rap sheet is used a lot to solve some of the major crimes that occur. I think we need to fix the system of punishment in some way as more of a deterent than what we currently have. Jails are way too crowded which allows criminals to run free.
2007-11-03 12:44:48 · answer #3 · answered by Tommiecat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
False. High rates of recividism and the growth of gangs inside prisons proves otherwise.
Jail only addresses crime after the fact anyway. It's not proven as a deterrence.
2007-11-03 13:07:14 · answer #4 · answered by raichasays 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
FALSE.
Jails should be reserved for those people who commit types of crimes where society is not safe with them free. This would include (but not necessarily be limited to) murderers, rapists, molesters, and armed robbers.
Other crimes should be punished by whipping in public, restitution, public service, or forced enlistment into the military.
A lopped off finger now and then wouldn't really bother me either if the thief was a repeater.
2007-11-03 12:40:31 · answer #5 · answered by Wyoming Rider 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since 90 percent of people in jail\prison are eventually released, I'd say the best answer is whatever works to successfully rehabilitate the criminal. Whether that requires more, less or different jail time is open for debate.
2007-11-03 12:32:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Jail is not the answer to all crimes though it's a good chance for reform.
2007-11-03 12:49:09 · answer #7 · answered by Lou 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
False.
2007-11-03 12:37:07 · answer #8 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
that will sure help alot of people straighten up so guess thats what it comes down to even though some people need other things, the first thing that comes to mind is through them in jail or lethal injection so unfourtantly i'd have to say thats true
2007-11-03 13:23:54 · answer #9 · answered by basketball boi 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cutting off fingers and hands works well too. Pretty soon when we have sharia law we'll get to see plenty of that.
2007-11-03 12:33:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋