Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Clearly, if rehabilitation is not required, then there's no rehabilitation to do...... I'm speaking specifically about people who abuse power for personal gain. Remove them from office, and they no longer have the means to abuse power. Why incarcerate a corrupt official? Why not just strip them of their office, have them repay whatever they stole, and send them on their way? All you need to do to prevent them from reoffending is not let them run for office again. There's no need to attempt to rehabilitate them once the means of harming society is removed.
In most criminal justice systems it obviously isn't unusual. Whether it is cruel is a matter of opinion and circumstance - one would hope not, but it often is.I wouldn't consider the imposition of a prison sentence cruel and unusual punishment.
I'm not in a position to even take a guess. What can any system do to help?What would be appropriate compensation for raping someone?
That would be an absurd approach.If "reform" involves telling rape victims that they are wrong to wish to see their attackers penalized in any way whatsoever, I think we have a problem. That sounds much more like abuse to me, and it's stunning to me that anyone thinks this would be a good thing.
Clearly, if rehabilitation is not required, then there's no rehabilitation to do...
I agree; forced rehabilitation, if possible, would not be a good - which is why I suggested it should be voluntary.I don't think any legal system in the world would effectively let corrupt officials off the hook simply because they've been removed from office.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Zippy that there are very deep problems of coercion in a rehabilitative system, to the point where it can potentially be the most problematic form of justice. A couple of examples I can think of from spending a lot of time in Spain:
1. Separatist movements that are engaging in illegal activities to further their goals. The state can punish them for breaking the law, but any attempt at rehabilitation is going to look politically motivated.
2. Ethnic groups that practice self-isolation and operate under different social assumptions. If a thief belongs to a social group that does not view theft against outsiders as morally wrong, and does not wish to be integrated into the larger society, there is something deeply coercive about using the justice system to rehabilitate by force. Better to use voluntary social programs to encourage integration.
I think using the criminal justice system to discourage crime while keeping the possibility of rehabilation open for those who wish it is ultimately much more reasonable than one focused exclusively on rehabilitation.
I agree; forced rehabilitation, if possible, would not be a good - which is why I suggested it should be voluntary.
The aim is not to punish but to rehabilitate.How would that be different than a retributive system with optional rehabilitation?
That would depend on the situation. If the unrehabilitated offender was considered such a danger to society that they could not be allowed back into it, they would be isolated from general society, living as normal a life as possible in those circumstances. Otherwise, they would be released under whatever conditions or restrictions were thought likely to minimise the risk of reoffending.You can say that someone's paid their debt to society and deserves a second chance regardless of whether or not they're likely to reoffend, but you can't say that prison is specifically about prevention and repair and then release people if they're not rehabilitated.
The aim is not to punish but to rehabilitate.
That would depend on the situation. If the unrehabilitated offender was considered such a danger to society that they could not be allowed back into it, they would be isolated from general society, living as normal a life as possible in those circumstances. Otherwise, they would be released under whatever conditions or restrictions were thought likely to minimise the risk of reoffending.
IOW, the aim would be not to punish but to treat, and treat humanely.
Not everything that is aimed for can be achieved.How can the aim be something that is merely optional?
It would depend on the context. If the risk of further offending while being assessed wasn't considered significant, there would be no reason to incarcerate them.Except that you said that the treatment ought to be voluntary. If a thief is not such a danger to society that they ought to be isolated from it forever, and has no interest in being rehabilitated, why send them to prison for any length of time? It would be immediately coercive. They can make pay back what was stolen without being isolated from society at all. Voluntary classes can be provided to them, and if they choose to go to them so be it. If they instead choose to steal again, then they can be made to repay what was stolen once again and recommended classes once more. Anything more than that is not exactly voluntary rehabilitation anymore.
Not everything that is aimed for can be achieved.
It would depend on the context. If the risk of further offending while being assessed wasn't considered significant, there would be no reason to incarcerate them.
The judgement on whether to isolate that type of offender from general society long term would be down to the what that society considered tolerable. But if that type or level of offending was not considered tolerable and rehabilitation was refused or was otherwise unworkable, there would be little alternative. Separation from society at large could be reasonably comfortable and productive. For some the loss of freedom would be a strong incentive to cooperate in rehabilitation; others might find it suited them.The other side to that is that if the risk that a thief or conman is going to reoffend is significant, even if they don't pose a physical danger to anyone, there would be no reason to ever free them. You can't make sense of maximum prison sentences if you've rejected the notion that prison time is (amongst other things) a type of penalty that ought to be proportional to the crime. I don't see any way to incorporate that sort of idea without relying upon a retributive theory of justice.
The judgement on whether to isolate that type of offender from general society long term would be down to the what that society considered tolerable. But if that type or level of offending was not considered tolerable and rehabilitation was refused or was otherwise unworkable, there would be little alternative. Separation from society at large could be reasonably comfortable and productive. For some the loss of freedom would be a strong incentive to cooperate in rehabilitation; others might find it suited them.
As this was a speculation on a desirable system, I was assuming a reasonably enlightened society. As I said previously, a significant attitude change would be required.Huh. If we're going by what any given society considers tolerable, then we could easily end up in a situation where something like homosexuality is considered a dangerous deviance, and permanent imprisonment unless the "offender" consents to "rehabilitation" is on the table.
As this was a speculation on a desirable system, I was assuming a reasonably enlightened society.
As this was a speculation on a desirable system, I was assuming a reasonably enlightened society. As I said previously, a significant attitude change would be required.
As I said, some societies have taken steps away from retributive systems towards rehabilitative systems.It sounds like you have a great strategy for maintaining a utopia. Now the only question is attaining a utopia.
An attitudinal change away from crime and punishment and towards social health and treatment.But an attitude change towards what?
I think we may have free will but there can come a time when we choose the wrong path that ca make it harder to have free will. If you choose to give into something then it can consume you over psychologically and emotionally. IMO free will is based on our conscience. We can know right from wrong. There is Gods will and self will. Self will can run riot and we get out of control. That's when we lose our ability to make the right choices. It is a paradox that to have free will we have to give up our will to God. Only then are we have some control. We don't become puppets to God and still will face temptation and choices. But we can be in a position to make the right choice by submitting to God.The concept of free will popped up in a discussion I have with @Sanoy. I think it should have its own thread to keep things a little tidy.
Is free will real? Can it be real, given what we know about natural laws? Is it truly possible, philosophically speaking?
There are different conceptions of what free will means. What I mean by it is something like this: the ability to make a choice (or think of something) without that choice being determined by something else. For example, you can use your will to choose pizza over tacos, but is it a free choice? Do you pick one over the other for no reason? Or is it in fact determined by, say, that you just don't happen to like the taste of one of them (which obviously isn't something you freely chose)?
What would be an example of truly free will being exercised?
(Posted in this subforum because it has implications for how we think about morality.)
Kid: "I couldn't help stealing that candy, dad, God made me do it."If someone tells you they don't believe in free will, then punch them in the face, and if they complain, say that you have no free will so you can't be held responsible for it.
NOTE: This is a joke, as I don't actually advocate punching anyone in the face.
Punishment may well have a place in society even if we think people couldn't actually have done otherwise. Sometimes it's easy to see: when my then two year old punched our newborn baby, we didn't hold her morally accountable as if she knew better. It was perfectly rational for her to do it. But it still had consequences. When we condemn each other morally, it's because we don't know the entire story. If we were them (meaning having their brains, backstories etc) we would do the exact same thing. So yes, guilt (and virtue) is impossible on this view, because it assumes the impossible: that a certain set of preconditions could've had a different outcome.But it makes guilt impossible. Why would you punish people if they do what they can't no do?
The concept of free will popped up in a discussion I have with @Sanoy. I think it should have its own thread to keep things a little tidy.
Is free will real? Can it be real, given what we know about natural laws? Is it truly possible, philosophically speaking?
There are different conceptions of what free will means. What I mean by it is something like this: the ability to make a choice (or think of something) without that choice being determined by something else. For example, you can use your will to choose pizza over tacos, but is it a free choice? Do you pick one over the other for no reason? Or is it in fact determined by, say, that you just don't happen to like the taste of one of them (which obviously isn't something you freely chose)?
What would be an example of truly free will being exercised?
(Posted in this subforum because it has implications for how we think about morality.)
Doesn´t follow.If someone tells you they don't believe in free will, then punch them in the face, and if they complain, say that you have no free will so you can't be held responsible for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?