I'd just consider a rehabilitation approach to be an overall better one, since the majority of inmates still want to function in life, and still deserve to once they get out. Our prison system makes that nearly impossible.
While I agree with your point about the importance of rehabilitation, it's also important to acknowledge that not all criminals are open to or capable of rehabilitation. For example, consider the case of serial killers or individuals with severe psychopathy who show no remorse for their actions. In such instances, the safety of the public becomes a primary concern that might outweigh the potential benefits of rehabilitation. What's your take on dealing with such cases? How would you propose we balance the need for public safety with the goal of rehabilitation in these circumstances?
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
On cases such as that, I’d still suggest prison time being the same or extended, I don’t think psychos should be out of prison at any time. Keep rehab programs open, but if no success is proven, just keep them there.
That reminds me of the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer. Despite Norway's general approach to rehabilitation, the gravity of his crimes and his lack of remorse led to an extended sentence. This shows that society can maintain a preference for rehabilitation while still prioritising public safety in extreme cases. This leads me to wonder, how do you think we should measure 'success' in rehabilitation? And should this measure influence the length of the sentence?
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
I'd say that success should definitely be a definition with a heavy level of caution attached to it, I don't have a measurement for it, but I'd say we should take the examples of other nations that abolished the death penalty and see what we can learn. If they show no signs of this "success" or regret for their actions, I'd keep the prison sentence for life, but under humane circumstances.
Join in on more popular conversations.