Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is the O'ist view on the death penalty?

Rate this topic


nimble

Recommended Posts

I think we need to progress to that stage. There are only three significant questions regarding disposing of guilty people. First: how can we make the victim whole? Jail time does not make the victim whole, and reparations must be the highest priority.
"Jail time does not make the victim whole" is misleading, as I think it underestimates the desire for revenge. If someone had wronged me significantly, I think it may help me to know that they were no longer living. I'm not convinced that this desire for revenge is something unhealthy or something that should be avoided either.

Third: is the person redeemable?
I'm not sure how we would ever decide that, in practice. In any case, I'm not especially happy with the idea of state brainwashing (as I said) - I dont think there should be any active efforts to 'reform' or rehabilitate prisoners, but if they were to change his beliefs during whatever punishment/segregation he suffered, then his return to society could be discussed. To clarify this, I am certainly not opposed to providing prisoners with resources which they could choose to use to change themselves (books etc), but I would disagree with the current structure of prisons which seem to be based around the idea of breaking people down psychologically.

I favor permanent incarceration with required labor -- a variant on Groovenstein's hard labor proposal
Well, I find the idea of physically punishing people quite sadistic and I dont think it should be encouraged. I would say that normally a simple execution would suffice; I dont see what value there is to be gained in inflicting pain (either mental or physical) on prisoners regardless of their crimes. If they are 'broken' people, then death seems like the humane option.

If you are suggesting some "lifetime incaracaration with hard labour" proposal that isnt needlessly cruel, I'd be open to suggestions.

.By punishment I assume you mean actions that go beyond making the victim whole.
I'm not sure what making the victim 'whole' means. Suppose the victim says he needs to see the offender tortured in order to feel 'whole' - what would we do then?

Then the primary purpose is neither of your proposed purposes: it is to remove them from society
I would agree with this, and should have included it. In a way it IS the most important purpose.

People who are in the position to forgive or not forgive (the victims and their families) are not in a position to make such a judgment, since this is emphatically not an emotional question. It is essentially a psychiatric issue, which should be pursued with scientific dispassion.

If this is what you mean by 'moral' iredeemability, I would say your terminology is very confusing. "Psychological iredeemability" seems a more accurate for the concept you are expressing.

But regarding the wishes of the victims, consider the following case; a drunk driver accidentally kills a man's wife and child. He expresses deep regret and it is obvious to everyone that he will never drink and drive again (psychiatrists say they agree). Would we simply order the man to pay reparations and set him free? Does the fact this would probably cause emotional anguish to the person who has just lost his family really mean nothing here? In one sense punishing this man will achieve nothing (he is already wracked with guilt and nothing we are likely to do to him will be as bad as what he does to himself), but in another sense, it seems necessary in order to deter others from drink driving and to make the victims feel better.

The same applies in a lot of cases - the feelings of the victims regarding what happens must surely be a factor to consider, even if not the primary one. Noone likes to think that people who have wronged them will 'get away' without sufficient punishment (thats why we have the concepts of heaven, hell and karma after all)

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Jail time does not make the victim whole" is misleading, as I think it underestimates the desire for revenge. If someone had wronged me significantly, I think it may help me to know that they were no longer living. I'm not convinced that this desire for revenge is something unhealthy or something that should be avoided either.
I don't deny that it's a real desire, but to take an obvious problem with the current system, there may sometimes be requirements for economic restitution to victims of crimes, which I think should be primary. his is easiest for crimes with economic consequences, but even a punch in the snoot can be assigned a price. The more serious the crime, the harder it is to compensate the victim. I'm not totally averse to a bit of the eye for an eye approach. Since I've never been raped, or had a loved one be raped, I don't know whether having at the guy for 5 minutes with a ball peen hammer would help. Best not to find out.
I'm not sure how we would ever decide that, in practice. In any case, I'm not especially happy with the idea of state brainwashing (as I said) - I dont think there should be any active efforts to 'reform' or rehabilitate prisoners, but if they were to change his beliefs during whatever punishment/segregation he suffered, then his return to society could be discussed.
Right: I think the state's only proper interest is in determining whether the criminal can be mainstreamed again, because the function of the state is to protect right, and not to provide for a general welfare state.
Well, I find the idea of physically punishing people quite sadistic and I dont think it should be encouraged. I would say that normally a simple execution would suffice; I dont see what value there is to be gained in inflicting pain (either mental or physical) on prisoners regardless of their crimes. If they are 'broken' people, then death seems like the humane option.

If you are suggesting some "lifetime incaracaration with hard labour" proposal that isnt needlessly cruel, I'd be open to suggestions.

First, I think the state has no business preventing suicide, so if such a life holds no value for a truly irredeemable person -- especially if the person finally grasps their nature and knows with moral certainty that it is beyond their ability to control -- they should have the option to check out permanently. I don't think that lifetime incarceration is necessarily cruel, and when I suggest shipping them off to Devil's Island, Alcatraz, or Robben Island, it's reasonable for the facility to have basic amenities (so for example, they would need to do something about the color of the walls of the buildings on Robben Island: I don't know whether that pain job was deliberate, but it was cruel).
If this is what you mean by 'moral' iredeemability, I would say your terminology is very confusing. "Psychological iredeemability" seems a more accurate for the concept you are expressing.
Well, it's about morality, and not, for example, epistemology. Both are cognitive aspects of humanity -- I suppose you could say "psychological iredeemability" as long as i's clear that the redemption that is needed is fundamentally moral, that is, it pertains to their ability to act morally.
But regarding the wishes of the victims, consider the following case; a drunk driver accidentally kills a man's wife and child. He expresses deep regret and it is obvious to everyone that he will never drink and drive again (psychiatrists say they agree). Would we simply order the man to pay reparations and set him free?
Dunno. I assume you want him to be drunk to include a strong "should have known better" aspect. I would say that significant reparations are called for, at the very least (for example "all of your assets"). The loss is quite significant, but I'm not convinced that locking the guy up for a year actually helps the victim's family. Some people might need the 5 minutes and a ball peen hammer; some might even require execution; perhaps money and a public act of contrition would work for some folks.

My main objection to punishment is that I haven't seen a rational grounding of the concept. The best argument I have heard is the deterrent argument. Ball peen hammers for the whole family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a previous thread on this matter, I pretty much came to these conclusions.

1) The sole purpose of a (proper) criminal justice system is to punish crminals. Any other outcome or possible side effect from the punishment is tertiary and immaterial.

2) Punishment should be commensurate to the crime. The only punishment and crime that can be assured to be consistently equal is the punishment one can receive for a capital offense. When a person is murdered, the murderer has taken away ALL of the rights of the victim by force. The just punishment is to take away ALL of the rights of the murderer.

3) While morally appropriate, there are too many legal problems in today's justice system to ensure a proper, objective conviction in MOST cases, though not all cases. As mentioned above, counsel incompetency is a problem. However, jury whim is equally problematic, if not worse.

I'm going to try to find the thread later, as many good ideas came up in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not define the term, as you noted, Hal. I gave you examples in literature whereby you might form the concept yourself and, if you like, create your own definition. Both characters are morally very guilty, yet only one is irredeemably so. That is the one who knows the full extent of his guilt and the full horror of his standard of value, and takes his pleasure from it. The other one can redeem himself by consciously recognizing the ultimate end that he is acting towards, recognize that that end fails his consciously chosen standard of value, and begin to take reasoned action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, I disagree somewhat with your conclusions. However, if I have seen the previous thread, I cannot recall it, and don't know how you arrived at your conclusions.

1) I think the sole purpose of the criminal justice system ought to be to exact justice, to have criminals dealt with exactly as they deserve to be dealt with. If nobody has anything to gain from punishing a criminal, then punishment for the purpose of punishment is not justice. However, justice demands that, when possible, the victim of a crime be permitted to take back that which was taken from him.

2) How a criminal is dealt with must be how he deserves to be dealt with, which depends on his moral crime and its context. Any person who proves he cannot live by reason in a rational capitalist society must be cast out of that society - how he is cast out, whether by imprisonment and for what duration, or by execution - depends on why he is to be cast out. Justice to a criminal does not necessarily mean to punish him; it refers to the kind of relationship which everybody else will maintain to the criminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, I disagree somewhat with your conclusions.

Okay, we disagree. I can live with that.

In particular, I think this post from the previous thread (thanks to softwareNerd for finding it) addresses the government's role in "gaining" something for the victim.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=43019

If you decide to read through this thread, you may or may not agree with my conclusions from it, but you may more likely see why I generally intend to stick with just throwing in my .02 summary in rather than getting fully involved again. It is a long thread, quite tense at times, and I have not intention of going through all that again (at least not right now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, violent criminals (rapists, murderers and the like) have progressed so far down the road to the annihilation of what enables them to even comprehend a civilized mode of life that they cannot (usually) be "re-habilitated".  They are no longer a rational human being or even a human being, they have descended to some sub-animal, rabid, crazed method of living.  Thus the second purpose of sentencing becomes paramount.  In this case the death penalty is justified simply because it is the only way to prevent them from harming other individuals.  Placing them in permanent solitary confinement is not a humane option.

What if the convicted killer was prepared to accept permanent confinement?

If killing is wrong in the first place, it's gotta be wrong the second time round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two main points. These are adding to previous comments, but I don't want to splice quote after quote, so I'll let these stand on their own, and anyone looking for further context can read previous posts.

1. While "hard" labor may have been the wrong term to use since I don't have a solid definition for it, I do support the idea that all criminals be required to perform work under reasonable conditions.

The primary justification I see for this is a restitution to the state. Cops, prosecutors, judges, etc., all cost money. Since he committed the crime, it is the criminal who should be responsible for all costs associated with bringing him to justice that can be reasonably calculated. In addition to investigation and trial, this includes the cost of incarceration. Therefore, at a minimum, the criminal should have to work until he has paid off a reasonable calculation of what he has cost the state. My preliminary position is that he should be "paid" at fair market value, but I'm open to ideas.

That's the kind of "debt to society" I'd like to see paid.

While not in any way a justification, a potential benefit I see from this is development of job skills and perhaps a sense of productivity for those who truly want to become productive citizens when they leave.

2. Regarding rehabilitation, I think it is not a goal of incarceration, nor does the state have any duty to rehabilitate. That said, if people want to voluntarily provide prisoners with constructive things like books, tutoring, games, and what have you, as of now I have no problem with that under the following conditions (and perhaps others I haven't thought of yet.)

Those activities must not interfere with things like the prisoner's required work. They must not interfere with the safety or proper administration of the prison. If a particular activity would require supervision, that is something the prisoner can have, but he's got to do more work to pay for it. Also, certain content must be prohibited, e.g. an instructional manual on breaking out of prison. (Though perhaps this extra criteria is unnecessary as it may already fall under the umbrella of earlier criteria.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your argument for this?  Do you see no distinction between the person who kills for kicks and the person who puts a needle in his arm?

I'm going to guess that "most" people have some form of sympathy or understanding when a domestic homicide occurs, not that the actions should be dismissed, but that the killer may have led an otherwise productive or non-violent life, so my focus is mainly on why people want to kill the savages, ie, Ted Bundy and co.

IMO, these people are creations of society, IOW, between poor parenting and societal indifference, some members of society suffer years of varying forms of abuse*,.. this enrages them and leads to overwhelming destructive impulses which culminate in various hardcore crimes.

I'm a supporter of Eric Fromm's "concept of man", which in essence says that just as a tree requires the right conditions for it's maturation and health, so does a human....IOW, human nature has a dynamic quality which fluctuates between two poles, one productive and one destructive.....and depending on many factors ,but primarily childhood, and specifically from birth to age 3, the seeds of destruction or production are sown.

"If" we accept that our unwillingness to secure quality upbringings for all members of society regardless of age or socio-economic status is the cause of serial killers and so on, then it hardly seems appropriate that we kill the ones who go haywire on us.

*the consistent theme of many true crime books is that of the killer having endured yrs of torture, often physical, sexual and psychological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess that "most" people have some form of sympathy or understanding when a domestic homicide occurs, not that the actions should be dismissed, but that the killer may have led an otherwise productive or non-violent life, so my focus is mainly on why people want to kill the savages, ie, Ted Bundy and co.

I have sympathy when a homicide occurs. It is for the victim, and the victim only. It is proper to feel sorry for the victim of an injustice. To feel sorry for the perpetrator of that injustice is to abstain from rendering moral judgment by refusing to recognize the facts of reality.

Where in your definition of "murderer" does otherwise productive activity enter into the equation? Or non-violent?!? Think about that. "I'm not a murderer, I only did it once. I was non-violent otherwise."

To those of you reading this, I don't think this particular point merits extended discussion. I am not familiar enough with Ayn Rand's works to provide a citation on this issue, so I'd appreciate if one of you referred this person to a specific work if you can.

Also, BucketHead, please remember that the forum rules state that spreading ideas contrary to Objectivism is prohibited here. Honest questions are permitted, so please tailor your future remarks accordingly.

With that in mind, if you want to discuss the propriety of capital punishment, go ahead.

But since it is contrary to Objectivism, you may not advance the notion that man has no free will. You may ask honest questions in this regard. I suggest that you do this in the threads discussing this topic by itself--i.e. in all contexts, not just capital punishment--(like this one: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=3630) and also consider any resources to which anyone points you.

[Edited to add link to thread on determinism versus volition.]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to guess that "most" people have some form of sympathy or understanding when a domestic homicide occurs

If you can't otherwise tell by my signature line, I'm not one of these "most" people. Rather, I think it's an affront to have symppathy for the people who choose murder or crime when so many other people have been through the same torturously horrible experiences, and still choose to behave ethically and do the right thing. For them, I have compassion and pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have sympathy when a homicide occurs.  It is for the victim, and the victim only.  It is proper to feel sorry for the victim of an injustice.  To feel sorry for the perpetrator of that injustice is to abstain from rendering moral judgment by refusing to recognize the facts of reality.

Who said anything about not feeling sympathy for the current victim?

And what about the fact that most madmen have been horrifically tortured?

Exactly what would you say to appease them?

Why is it ok for society{but specifically a handful of individuals} to abuse a child for years and then just expect that person to function ethically?

What are your thoughts on preventing/mitigating the years of abuse that random children suffer?

Have you ever been abused in an horrific fashion?

Where in your definition of "murderer" does otherwise productive activity enter into the equation?  Or non-violent?!?  Think about that.  "I'm not a murderer, I only did it once.  I was non-violent otherwise."
You're demonizing the murderer, pretending that every other aspect of his life would be negative/immoral.....on what basis do you make this assessment?

Also, BucketHead, please remember that the forum rules state that spreading ideas contrary to Objectivism is prohibited here.  Honest questions are permitted, so please tailor your future remarks accordingly.

Based on my reading of ITOE and various other Objectivist material, I fully support Objectivists epistemology to the extent that I understand it.

But since it is contrary to Objectivism, you may not advance the notion that man has no free will.

I accept man has free will, but what is YOUR explanation for those who serial kill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't otherwise tell by my signature line, I'm not one of these "most" people.  Rather, I think it's an affront to have symppathy for the people who choose murder or crime when so many other people have been through the same torturously horrible experiences, and still choose to behave ethically and do the right thing.  For them, I have compassion and pity.

I'm not suggesting that murders get off scott free, I'm merely expressing the reasons why I'm against the death penalty.

If you choose to murder then you should be locked up and kept away from society.

I'm just curious if people have a theory as to why people serial kill...it's almost as though you guys are saying, " well that's wrong, end of discussion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you choose to murder then you should be locked up and kept away from society.

I'm just curious if people have a theory as to why people serial kill...it's almost as though you guys are saying, " well that's wrong, end of discussion".

Where have I suggested you shouldn't be curious about why people murder other people? I merely addressed the concept of being sympathetic to a murderer.

Sympathy and curiosity are two distinctly different and unrelated concepts. I have no disdain for curiosity or knowledge-seeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about not feeling sympathy for the current victim?

And what about the fact that most madmen have been horrifically tortured?

Exactly what would you say to appease them?

Why is it ok for society{but specifically a handful of individuals} to abuse a child for years and then just expect that person to function ethically?

What are your thoughts on preventing/mitigating the years of abuse that random children suffer?

Have you ever been abused in an horrific fashion?

You might find this thread to be interesting reading:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ildren%20rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept man has free will, but what is YOUR explanation for those who serial kill?

Buckethead, your earlier statement (supporting Fromm's views), about serial killers being creations of society, contradicts your first clause. As for the second clause, I can suggest a tentative, provisional, and hesitant explanation, not a theory.

My explanation is not the result of professional study. I am not a psychologist or other specialist. My explanation is based only on news reports and a little thinking. But if you want to use my explanation as a target, go ahead:

Serial killers are altruists at the level of ethics, intrinsicists in epistemology, and social metaphysicians at the most fundamental level -- ontology.

That is the philosophical cause of their psychological nature.

As to why a society, following objective rules of evidence, may properly execute serial killers (but need not do so under all circumstances), the answer is simple: To get rid of them so that they will never threaten anyone again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . And what about the fact that most madmen have been horrifically tortured? . . .  Why is it ok for society{but specifically a handful of individuals} to abuse a child for years and then just expect that person to function ethically?

That anyone is tortured unjustly is bad. But madmen are still morally responsible for their actions unless you can prove they are incapable of telling right from wrong period, i.e. legally insane. Then they are free from moral judgment. (That's a hell of a burden to meet, too. Particularly if the state of psychology today is anything like I've heard it is from certain members of this board, that is, a lot of fluff from people with bad philosophies.) They still don't get my sympathy.

I assume I am included in the group "society"? Then let me say this: I have not abused anyone. No more of this "it takes a village" stuff. The responsibility for abuse falls on those who commit it.

What are your thoughts on preventing/mitigating the years of abuse that random children suffer?
What do you think I'm going to say? I'm thrilled that innocent children are abused? Of course not. To the extent we are able under a system of objective law, put the abusers in jail.

As for when the children become adults, I addressed that above. They are responsible for their actions unless demonstrably unable to tell right from wrong.

Have you ever been abused in an horrific fashion?

No. Irrelevant.

You're demonizing the murderer, pretending that every other aspect of his life would be negative/immoral.....on what basis do you make this assessment?
No, I'm declaring that every other aspect of his life is irrelevant. A "murderer" is "someone who murders." To "murder" is, in general terms, "to intentionally kill another human being as an initiation of force," or, perhaps we could say "without valid justification." You wouldn't call someone who killed in self-defense a "murderer."

So, if a guy fits the definition, he's a murderer. If the rest of his life he's Donald Trump, that's irrelevant to whether he fits the definition of murderer.

Based on my reading of ITOE and various other Objectivist material,  I fully support Objectivists epistemology to the extent that I understand it.I accept man has free will, but what is YOUR explanation for those who serial kill?

That's great, keep reading and thinking.

However, you were saying that man has no free will, which is spreading an idea contrary to Objectivism, which is against the forum rules. You're better off asking questions if there's something you disagree with or don't understand. Just keep that in mind is all.

The best explanation about serial killers I can offer is this, which is really not worth much as to you as I gather you're looking for psychological stuff. If they are capable of being moral, and they are serial killers, they're evil. If they are incapable of being moral, they're not good, but they cannot be morally judged. I have no idea how to go about determining whether a particular individual can or can't form intent based on crazy stuff he was subjected to as a child. Hopefully, for you and for me, somebody on here has some helpful insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have I suggested you shouldn't be curious about why people murder other people?  I merely addressed the concept of being sympathetic to a murderer.

I would have thought that the basis for sympathy is empathy, ie, relating your suffering to others.....of course if you've had a privileged life{which I suspect most scientists and philosophers have had }, then you need to extrapolate somewhat, but in all seriousness how can people look at Charles Manson's{for ex} yrs of beatings/homosexual rapes and general neglect and not have some sympathy?

If the general membership of this forum recognizes that the average person and even the average intellectual suffers from varying degrees of irrationality, then what hope does someone habitually tortured have comparatively speaking, IOW, I'm not ruling out exceptions, but many of the famous killers have histories of abuse, usually disturbing in content and duration....that being the case, it would seem that the abuse coupled with overall neglect including the neglect of intellectual and ethical developement would be a reasonable explanation for why some people kill strangers.

I would just like to mention that I value truth and that it's quite likely that I've got some ways to go before I can say that I truly understand Objectivism in totality, but Ayn Rand is a genius by all accounts, her epistemology is superb and I consider Objectivism as the Strongest Philosophy.

Anyway chaps, that's all I have time for today and I'm usually busy over the weekend, so I'll respond to all the other posts ASAP but probably late Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckethead, your earlier statement (supporting Fromm's views), about serial killers being creations of society, contradicts your first clause.

Fromm's "concept of man" is a scientific construct, Fromm claimed that it's aim was to try and determine human nature as a theorectical construct, rather than be it's premiss, however, if one consistently notices a pattern between abuse and later response, then we can infer in a scientific{but not absolute sense*}, that abuse is the driver{major factor} and that the elimination of abuse will diminish if not eliminate the desire to serial kill or to develop a pyschological profile known as sociopath.

We can infer that there is a dynamic productive/destructive aka love/hate in play based on later observations and aided by a concept of man, the alternative would seem to suggest that human nature is just an endless list of activities.

*science only needs to be superior to guesswork, and it's twin hallmarks are explanation and prediction, it doesn't have to supply every possible answer, every possible piece of info.

i]Serial killers are altruists at the level of ethics, intrinsicists in epistemology, and social metaphysicians at the most fundamental level -- ontology.

This just decribes their mentalities, it offers no explanation for their mentalities.

As to why a society, following objective rules of evidence, may properly execute serial killers (but need not do so under all circumstances), the answer is simple: To get rid of them so that they will never threaten anyone again.

If you have the iron clad evidence that would condemn someone to death, then you have the grounds for permanent incarceration, thus eliminating another unecessary kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  They still don't get my sympathy.

Aren't you anti the death penalty?

I assume I am included in the group "society"?  Then let me say this: I have not abused anyone.  No more of this "it takes a village" stuff.  The responsibility for abuse falls on those who commit it.
Of course, but that doesn't prevent the abuse in the first place, this is the societal indifference I refer to, in that despite you being a law abiding citizen, you don't advocate any preventative measures and this prevalent mentality guarantees more madman{ as the evidence indicates, I'm not guessing}

So, if a guy fits the definition, he's a murderer.  If the rest of his life he's Donald Trump, that's irrelevant to whether he fits the definition of murderer.

Ok.

If they are capable of being moral, and they are serial killers, they're evil.  If they are incapable of being moral, they're not good, but they cannot be morally judged. 

My contention is that people's ethics are "largely" a result of treatment, this includes education, IOW, you'd generally expect that the more intelligent and knowledgeable a person is, the more secure any ethical system or code they develop would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you anti the death penalty?

Yes, I oppose the death penalty. Did you read why?

Of course, but that doesn't prevent the abuse in the first place, this is the societal indifference I refer to, in that despite you being a law abiding citizen, you don't advocate any preventative measures and this prevalent mentality guarantees more madman . . .

What do you think my duties are in this regard? What "preventative measures" should I have to take?

The rest of your post is more appropriately discussed in the thread on free will versus determinism to which I referred you previously. My refusal to address your points on this issue is not to be taken as implicit agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right: I think the state's only proper interest is in determining whether the criminal can be mainstreamed again, because the function of the state is to protect right, and not to provide for a general welfare state.

Do you consider rehabilitating a criminal while in prison to be a function of the welfare state? Is feeding and clothing the prisoner part of the welfare state as well?

Criminals who successfully complete rehabilitation programs are much less likely to commit a crime when they get out of prison, as far as I know. Maybe RationalCop may know about this and chime in. Unfortunately, most people aren't thinkers and do not believe ideas and morality matter in the same way that we do, especially criminals, that's why I see rehabilitation programs as fitting in somewhere. Psychological rehabilitation often brings convicted criminals to accept the crimes they committed were wrong and not reoffend.

In prison, criminals could probably have some "AA" style meetings that wouldn't cost a penny to organize--some could focus on drugs but others could focus on crime. I'm sure places like the John Howard Society would offer volunteers to head that up.

Here's another example: The labour camps could be orientated toward jobs that a prisoner could find useful after he is released, so his years in the pen get him some job training and help him work afterward instead of getting out, being poor and returning to the same habits because he dosn't want to work his way out of his disadvantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...