PDA

View Full Version : Rehabilitation, Reintegration and Resocialization of Criminals



Nachtengel
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 12:28 AM
Do you support rehabilitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology)) of criminals and all that comes with it? If so for which crimes?

I think some people are born criminals and therefore I don't support it for grave crimes. Some people just can't be reintegrated in society and it's nt worth experimenting with such concepts.

Ossi
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 12:35 AM
Ya. They can rehabilitate themselves in front of their gods at judgement day.

:D

No, the death penalty for the worst crimes, and other measures like exile or prison and such for others. But of course I'm not talking about what's considered a "crime" today like hate crimes and thought crimes.

Sissi
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 12:49 AM
I think it very much depends on the crime. If you stole something to feed your family you might fit in again, but if you are a rapist or murderer, I have my doubts.

I can tell you that this topic was popular among Austrian politicians some decades ago, and they ended up burning their fingers, because they made a big mistake. There was a murderer, Jack Unterweger, who was released from prison and allowed in society despite having committed that murder and having some extra history of petty crimes. He became a very successful and admired person, and everyone was giving him as an example of the good results of the rehabilitation theory. But while this happened, he was killing again and again under the authorities' and politicians' nose. When they finally caught him, they discovered his crimes had been going on for a long time, and he even killed outside Austria. He went as far as the USA where he also killed.

So, the only "rehabilitation" some criminals are interested in is repeat offending. They act nice in prison to be released and then, as soon as they're not under the magnifying glass anymore, they just get back to the previous behavior. :thumbdown

Patrioten
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 12:56 AM
Ideally, the justice system would be set up in a way which ensured that the outmost majority of all criminals ended up either dead by execution or behind bars for the rest of their lives sooner or later, preferably sooner. Their kind should be weeded out from the rest of the population, removed from society and prevented from engaging in criminal activites ever again.

These people are quite simply a group of useless parasites who live off others and the government, they contribute nothing of value to society but instead detract from it. They lower the quality of life for decent folks and make them feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods. What more is there to say really. Even when imprisoned for their deeds they still cost us money, resources which we could have spent on other things, a final attestament to their parasitic nature and their uselessness as human beings.

Bärin
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 12:58 AM
No. The motive of the crime can tell you about the person's psychology. If someone kills or rapes for pleasure, he's sick in the head and shouldn't be allowed to continue his fetish. I have no sympathy for these kinds of criminals. The death penalty for them. There is no excuse to act like that, you can't justify killing or raping a random girl off the street.

What annoys me the most is criminal immigrants. They should be deported immediately, not rehabilitated. :mad

Ward
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 01:43 AM
I think it very much depends on the crime. If you stole something to feed your family you might fit in again, but if you are a rapist or murderer, I have my doubts.

I can tell you that this topic was popular among Austrian politicians some decades ago, and they ended up burning their fingers, because they made a big mistake. There was a murderer, Jack Unterweger, who was released from prison and allowed in society despite having committed that murder and having some extra history of petty crimes. He became a very successful and admired person, and everyone was giving him as an example of the good results of the rehabilitation theory. But while this happened, he was killing again and again under the authorities' and politicians' nose. When they finally caught him, they discovered his crimes had been going on for a long time, and he even killed outside Austria. He went as far as the USA where he also killed.

Ugh.. cases like that are infuriating! I also saw a documentary on that Austrian cellar guy, Josef Fritzl, that said he had also been busted for rape before. It really makes the blood boil to think these evil scumbags could have been stopped earlier in their criminal careers.

I'm convinced that rapists, pedophiles, etc. cannot be cured of their mental illness. The history of repeat offenses amongst such individuals is testament to this. If they are found guilty after a fair trial, then either castrate 'em or put 'em down.

And naturally, cold blooded killers deserve death. For other crimes not involving rape or murder, I think a "3 strikes and your out" policy is sensible (including a stiff prison sentence for each strike), reducing it to 2 strikes in more egregious cases.

The way liberals tend to coddle and sympathize with criminal deviants is yet another one of their despicable characteristics.

Sissi
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 01:08 PM
Ugh.. cases like that are infuriating! I also saw a documentary on that Austrian cellar guy, Josef Fritzl, that said he had also been busted for rape before. It really makes the blood boil to think these evil scumbags could have been stopped earlier in their criminal careers.

I'm convinced that rapists, pedophiles, etc. cannot be cured of their mental illness. The history of repeat offenses amongst such individuals is testament to this. If they are found guilty after a fair trial, then either castrate 'em or put 'em down.

And naturally, cold blooded killers deserve death. For other crimes not involving rape or murder, I think a "3 strikes and your out" policy is sensible (including a stiff prison sentence for each strike), reducing it to 2 strikes in more egregious cases.

The way liberals tend to coddle and sympathize with criminal deviants is yet another one of their despicable characteristics.
Oh, the Fritzl case was a big blow for Austria. It practically ruined our reputation in the international eye. I'm convinced there are ignorant people out there who believe men like Fritzl are representative of Austria. :thumbdown

Yes, the police found his previous criminal record, and he was known as a sex offender. His record contained a conviction for rape and an attempt rape as well as an arrest for public exposure. The most ridiculous thing about this man is that his criminal deeds were blamed on "Austria's nazi past".

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 02:10 PM
Hmm, once I saw a criminalistic show where someone compiled a scale of criminals. The highest rank were the torture murderers who did it for the sadistic pleasure. In my view, peoples who score on that rank shouldn't be given a second chance to rehabilitate. Because they are too psychologically instable to be able to part of society anymore.

Ward
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:13 PM
Oh, the Fritzl case was a big blow for Austria. It practically ruined our reputation in the international eye. I'm convinced there are ignorant people out there who believe men like Fritzl are representative of Austria. :thumbdown

Yes, the police found his previous criminal record, and he was known as a sex offender. His record contained a conviction for rape and an attempt rape as well as an arrest for public exposure. The most ridiculous thing about this man is that his criminal deeds were blamed on "Austria's nazi past".

Yeah, in the documentary I saw some psychologist or something speculated that he may have become an overbearing control-freak due to his childhood experience in the Nazi era. The media just can't help but squeeze in a shot at NS any chance they get.

Anyway, I don't know about in Europe, but it did get a lot of publicity over here in the States just because it was such a truly shocking case in and of itself. I think most people realized it was an isolated incident that could have happened anywhere.

Matrix
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:15 PM
I doubt the topic is so simple as it looks. The born criminal theory was shaken when psychologists discovered serial killers with normal childhood and pre-criminal lives. What's more some psychological experiments were conducted which hinted average Joe would have committed murder if given the chance.

Nachtengel
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:33 PM
I doubt the topic is so simple as it looks. The born criminal theory was shaken when psychologists discovered serial killers with normal childhood and pre-criminal lives. What's more some psychological experiments were conducted which hinted average Joe would have committed murder if given the chance.
Every rule has its exceptions.

Ward
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:41 PM
I doubt the topic is so simple as it looks. The born criminal theory was shaken when psychologists discovered serial killers with normal childhood and pre-criminal lives. What's more some psychological experiments were conducted which hinted average Joe would have committed murder if given the chance.


But if they had normal, healthy childhoods and still grew up to be killers, then it wouldn't be deficient nurturing that drove them to kill, it would be their inner nature, no? Hence they were indeed born killers.

Matrix
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:49 PM
But if they had normal, healthy childhoods and still grew up to be killers, then it wouldn't be deficient nurturing that drove them to kill, it would be their inner nature, no? Hence they were indeed born killers.
Yes, the psychologists came to a conclusion like that, except that according to their theory, we are all born with a criminal side.


The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Another find was that men's brain differing from women, they have less capability to self control. That's why there are fewer women criminals than men. As I said, it's not an easy topic.

Patrioten
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:52 PM
Some criminals are smarter than others. Some of them might find an appropriate outlet for their deviant nature at a later stage in life than others, while starting off as from the outside seemingly normal individuals, and continuing to uphold this facade, or roleplaying, for quite a few years. Psychopaths in particular are masters of manipulation and deceit and do not all resort to commiting murders, although some do. What sets them off individually is something we can only speculate about but I do not consider it a surprising fact that some of them make it well into adulthood before they commit their first crime.

Patrioten
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 09:58 PM
Yes, the psychologists came to a conclusion like that, except that according to their theory, we are all born with a criminal side.


The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experimentThe inner workings of following orders given by an authority on the one hand which results in the suffering or death of others, and by one's own initiative breaking the social and legal contracts of one's community/group/tribe, are very different would be my uneducated guess. Humans have engaged in warfare and organized killing throughout our existence, but there has always been a clear distinction between warfare and murder.

Killing others to defend yourself or your tribe is not the same thing as to kill your neighbor or a random person for your own pleasure. The two are entirely different in nature.

Ward
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:11 PM
Yes, the psychologists came to a conclusion like that, except that according to their theory, we are all born with a criminal side.


The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Another find was that men's brain differing from women, they have less capability to self control. That's why there are fewer women criminals than men. As I said, it's not an easy topic.

Ah, the Milgram experiment -- that's a pretty famous one. But that experiment showed the extent to which many people are willing to conform and follow orders. Even though they had moral qualms and were reluctant to do it, the external pressures led them to the point that they would flip the electrocution switch.

That doesn't mean they're born killers, like, say Paul Bernardo or John Wayne Gacy. Nobody was pressuring them to commit their heinous crimes.

Patrioten
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:18 PM
Ah, the Milgram experiment -- that's a pretty famous one. But that experiment showed the extent to which many people are willing to conform and follow orders. Even though they had moral qualms and were reluctant to do it, the external pressures led them to the point that they would flip the electrocution switch.

That doesn't mean they're born killers, like, say Paul Bernardo or John Wayne Gacy. Nobody was pressuring them to commit their heinous crimes.We are not born murderers, but most of us, and particularly us men, are born as potential killers in the service of ourselves (in self-defence), our family (in protecting our family), our tribe or our country (in fighting in wars against our enemies). Mankind's history is an attestament to this, millions and millions of men have killed other human beings on the battlefield, it is part of our nature as pack animals.

Ward
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:28 PM
We are not born murderers, but most of us, and particularly us men, are born as potential killers in the service of ourselves (in self-defence), our family (in protecting our family), our tribe or our country (in fighting in wars against our enemies). Mankind's history is an attestament to this, millions and millions of men have killed other human beings on the battlefield, it is part of our nature as pack animals.

Aye, I agree with you there. Almost everyone of us is capable of killing under the right circumstances. But I don't think everyone is born with a blood lust, an irresistible urge to kill. What I meant was that a few people are born this way though. They have no sense of conscience and a desire to kill for no other reason than sick self-satisfaction. These are the one's we typically designate as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths."

Patrioten
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 10:36 PM
Aye, I agree with you there. Almost everyone of us is capable of killing under the right circumstances. But I don't think everyone is born with a blood lust, an irresistible urge to kill. What I meant was that a few people are born this way though. They have no sense of conscience and a desire to kill for no other reason than sick self-satisfaction. These are the one's we typically designate as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths."Indeed, and therein lies the difference between a normal human being and a criminal, this urge to commit wrongful, illegal acts.

Reich des Waldes
Monday, June 29th, 2009, 11:58 PM
I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. I would even argue that public hangings should be brought back. You see, a family can hide the fact that they have a family member in prison but you cannot hide the fact that said family member was executed publicly for their crime(s). It would bring great shame to the family, perhaps forcing them into being ostracized. Such shame may even persuade parents to take a more active roll in their childrens' upbringing to avoid being ridiculed. Though we would have to be living in an Honor/Shame culture-based society first which would already probably solve a number of problems we currently face.

If I were to sentence someone to death for their crimes it would be for the reason that no matter where I put said person, whether I lock them away in prison or exile them from my county, they will still be a threat to someone's existence.


We are not born murderers, but most of us, and particularly us men, are born as potential killers in the service of ourselves (in self-defence), our family (in protecting our family), our tribe or our country (in fighting in wars against our enemies). Mankind's history is an attestament to this, millions and millions of men have killed other human beings on the battlefield, it is part of our nature as pack animals.

War will be every man's concern, especially mine,
of all those who live in Troy. - Hector, Illiad Book 6

Matrix
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:04 AM
Ah, the Milgram experiment -- that's a pretty famous one. But that experiment showed the extent to which many people are willing to conform and follow orders. Even though they had moral qualms and were reluctant to do it, the external pressures led them to the point that they would flip the electrocution switch.

That doesn't mean they're born killers, like, say Paul Bernardo or John Wayne Gacy. Nobody was pressuring them to commit their heinous crimes.
Not criminals like Paul Bernardo, but his criminal girlfriend acted under pressure, just to please him. There isn't just one type of murderer, there are plenty, and we still don't know for sure what goes on in their minds and what triggers them to commit crimes.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, June 30th, 2009, 12:07 AM
Science and medical research will take care of that. In future, we might be able to isolate criminal genes and remove them from our pool via genetic engineering. Until then, a form of eugenics is already practiced via capital punishment.