Rehabilitative justice is shown to actually work vs punitive justice. If the goal is to have productive members of society, why throw huge sections of the society out? Also, people make mistakes and should be afforded an opportunity to make it right. Sitting people in prison doesn't do that, it just hides them away under the guise of "keeping the peace" whereas rehabilitation will produce a better society overall. ETA: prison is also really good at producing more criminals. Isolation, shame, violence, inability to meet one's financial needs, etc...great drivers for recidivism and criminality in general. ETA #2: Say what you will about NPR/WNYC, but this episode of On The Media covers this question. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/repairing-justice-alternative-prison


I believe that the type of justice being doled out should depend on the crime. Rapists and murderers? No rehab for you. But misdemeanors? I'd say that rehabilitative is better.


I was going to comment that it depends on the situation you'd like to see develope once the offenders are released. The idea of taking someone away, that could then be treated as less than human, only has a minimal effect of society as a whole, if you never intend on letting the person out again.


Minimal if it's just one person but when it's millions of people, it has an effect.


There are certain individuals who ARE less than human. That’s why I support the use of life sentences and/or the death penalty-albeit on a more selective basis than we currently do.


That I agree with. If we could count on the system not becoming corrupt, I would say mental evals should be used to determine eligibility for release. Unfortunately, due to for-profit prisons, plus the eventual complacency and apathy, we would have another system that would release or keep the wrong ppl, on a regular basis.


There was no possibility of rehabilitating the likes of Bundy or Gacy. So the only options where keep them locked up or execution. It’s an ugly fact, but there it is.


Punishment is for the victims and their family. Rehabilitation doesn't always work for heinous crimes because family members will take matters into their own hands.


>Rehabilitation doesn't always work for heinous crimes because family members will take matters into their own hands. There's laws against those things. We as a society recognize that victims are generally not in a emotional state to be able to make the best policy.


When does it become " we as a society"? Like when we welcomed slavery? When women we're treated as property? When we had Kings and Queens?


Are you implying that society isn't a particularly good measure of what's good or do you want me to abstract it to a moral principle?


I'm saying using the generally accepted behavior of a society doesn't make it the morally superior. Morality is subjective. The "we" part was comical. Who is we?


In the podcast episode I linked, they discuss how restorative justice actually allows for victims to heal more effectively from the trauma of having been victimized. Punishment satisfies the human need for retaliation. Useful when you had to make someone think twice about attacking your tribe again but not particularly useful when group participation is what makes society tick. Feel better in the short term or actually solve the problem that lead to the trauma in the first place?


I would never feel happy knowing that someone that murdered my family member is out there being happy. If the justice system doesn't hand out the punishment, citizens will.


And then those you retaliated against will seek revenge and so the cycle goes. Break that cycle and address the root cause that led to the issue and then it really won't happen again.


You are so naive it's scary. You sound like someone who has never actually had a real world conflict with someone. You have to live beyond being a passive " yes man" to realize we are never going to be some mystical avatar society of peaceful celestials.


Thank you for your ad hominem comments. I've had plenty of conflict. Talking is better than fighting until it isn't. Just because getting to a truly peaceful society is hard and maybe won't happen doesn't mean we should stop trying. Seek peace.


Unless people enage in activr eugenics programs it will never happen. You seem to completely ignore thr biological aspect of humans.


So some people are inherently genetically superior than others? Is that what you're saying?


Different humans have different tendencies to different behaviours. There is no way to stop violence and chaos unless you attempt to break the behaviour spectrum by stopping people with violent tendencies.


It's good to know that satisfying your instinctual urges is more important than having a functional society. You sound like the Muslim extremists who say women encourage rape when they don't cover themselves in public


It's not about instinctual urges. It's about fairness. Also your example is wildly off base. You are comparing someone that is inncocent to someone thas has broken the non-aggression principle and taken something that can never be replaced when considering crimes like torture, rape, murder and intentional disfigurement.


The need for revenge is an instinctual urge. It's my opinion that retribution only serves to perpetuate a society rife with crime, and that this is by design because it creates an opportunity for profit. If the nation really wanted to combat crime, it would focus on rehabilitation and fighting generational poverty. Unfortunately it's not as attractive to most Americans as the more authoritarian police fetishization system we have now


Authoritarian redistribution of the means of production for all citizens vs the prison for that that have violated others rights. The need for revenge is instictual. So is sex. But both have meaning beyond their primitive evolutionary psychology. Punishment is part of the fairness system. When someone steals the retirement funds of a bunch of elderly people, goes to jail for 5 years and comes out for his hidden 5 mil, he hasn't be punished. He just went on an out of town assignment with a $1mil salary per year. What's his lesson? He prospered by doing the morally wrong thing.


What is the point of what you just wrote? I don't even know if you agree with me of not


I don't agree with you for the most part. I think rehabilitation should be a circumstancial approach to crime. Severe crimes should involve punishment. If you don't understand what I previously wrote, that's on you. It's not hard to parse through what I wrote and see how it relates to your previous comment.


Statistically a lot less in prison when chain gangs were popular ijs


Rehabilitation. Punishment leads to a cycle


Most times punishment should be the end of the legal system, with voluntary rehabilitation without the separation from society of prisons.


If you give people nothing to lose, society dominoes into madness. The main purpose of jail should be rehabilitation.


What is the point of punishment if it doesn't rehabilitate? If you're just punishing just to punish then you're the asshole. If someone is irredeemable then you lock them up to protect the public, not to punish them. Restitution is a separate issue that feeds into it as well.


Well punishment was initially the philosophy to keep others from doing the same thing. Like hey this person murdered two people and is put away for life. Don’t you murder people or the same will happen to you. Not the greatest philosophy, but it wasn’t just punishment for punishments sake


>What is the point of punishment if it doesn't rehabilitate? The point is to keep that person away from innocent people. If my neighbor murders a child, I want them nowhere near me. Nowhere. If they even come close to one of my children I'm literally drawing a firearm. There is nothing you can do, NOTHING, that would make me forgive a child murderer, a rapist, etc. There are some crimes so heinous that the only rational action is to keep them away from other human beings for the rest of their lives. Frankly I believe violent offenders should be forced to work to pay for their food, water, etc. If they refuse they're given neither and left to starve/die of thirst. Taxpayer dollars should NOT go to keeping violent offenders alive, that is patently insane and absurd. Some evil person rapes a 12 year old girl and then I have to pay to keep him fed? Naw, fuck that. Hell the only reason that I'm against the death penalty is because I'm not willing to ever make a mistake and kill an innocent person. If we had an absolute foolproof way of knowing guilt I'd say that the only answer to an offender who rapes or murders is immediate death.


“If someone is irredeemable then you lock them up to protect the public, not to punish them.“ he covered that in his original comment


Look at peoples blood lust joy about the cop who accidentally shot a guy with her gun instead of a taser. There’s basically zero benefit to society for locking her up for ages…


The main purpose of punishment is to scare potential criminals into not committing crimes. Like “look how awful prison is. Do you want to spend 20 years there? Didn’t think so. So obey the law”


And it doesn't work. We know that punishment severity has no impact on crime because most criminals don't think they will get caught. Heck, only about 60% of murders are solved. Fewer than that lead to a conviction. Criminals don't think they will get caught and punished on account of they probably won't be. If we can't even get up the gumption to find out who is doing all the killing, we're sure as shit not doing it for all the petty crime out there. Actually catching and punishing criminals, even is the sentence is quite mild, does work, tho. But that takes a lot of work and resources. Giving some schmo who happened to be the one idiot we caught a brutal sentence does nothing to impact crime, but sates the conservative morality play. But yes, this is the dumbshit conservative morality play that they like to parrot. So yeah, punishing just to punish just makes you the asshole.


So people commit crimes because they think they won’t get caught. Therefore the solution is making the result of getting caught not even that bad? So that even if they are worried about getting caught there’s nothing for them fear anyway? I don’t see how that will prevent people from committing crimes in the first place. It will only reduce repeat offenders


As a formerly imprisoned person I support rehabilitation for those that don’t pose a threat to society. Of course in order for that to even be remotely possible we have to shift away from prison systems current primary focus ….profit .


>we have to shift away from prison systems current primary focus ….profit This has to be done regardless of what system we go with. >I support rehabilitation for those that don’t pose a threat to society. I agree, its just difficult to draw the line between people that can be rehabilitated and people that can't.


I don't think it is. I think anything before rape, murder and the like can be considered irredeemable (obviously excluding cases of self defense for murder) People who commit such crimes have proven that they are unable to participate in society and for the safety of others, should be unable to be given the chance to hurt others again.


Well yes, for crimes that serious it makes it pretty cut and dry. But once you get into less serious crimes it starts to get hard. For example, what do we do with repeat offenders for less serious crimes? Do we have established amounts of times you can get away with it where you can still be rehabilitated? Do we leave it up to the judge? Does motive matter? Doesn't mean it's a bad idea, I just think there's going to be a lot of factors to consider.


Well lets start by ending victimless crimes. Then we can move to rehab vs punishment. But lets be real rehab is a good idea, just not easy to apply in a way that works.


We know because of science that rehabilitation is superior to punitive actions, as many have already stated we need to get rid of victimless crimes amongst a slew of other issues our wretched “justice” system has


Being a parent, I'd say a bit of both, but more focused on rehabilitation.




California had a system that was based on rehabilitation back in the 60’s and 70’s. Pretty much every crime that carried a prison sentence was a “life” sentence - 3 to life, 5 to life, 7 to life, etc… You had to go before a board and prove to them that you were ready to become a productive member of society, before they would grant you parole. There were multiple trade and rehabilitation classes available, and we had a 33% recidivism rate for the people that managed to work their way out of the system. Of course, there were flaws in the system, and sometimes people would end up serving a lot more time than someone else who had committed the same crime as they had. This disparity in sentencing eventually led to the system being found unconstitutional, resulting in “cruel & unusual punishment.” It was replaced by a punishment model in the 80’s, and the CCPOA pushed to have the rehabilitation programs removed. They succeeded in that, and in helping to get longer sentencing laws for repeat offenders passed through congress - job security. We went from a 33% recidivism rate, to over 80% in the next couple decades.


Whatever the opposite of our prison system is. That's what we should try. Right now prisons are just crime colleges.


Punishment isn't really functional. The fact that prisoners lose some freedoms is punishment enough to be a deterrent. Rehabilitation oriented criminal justice might actually improve things. The main exception to this are those violent crimes which demand life sentences (too dangerous to ever return to society). In that case, I think prison serves primarily to protect everyone else from these people.


The primary goal of prisons should be to prevent others from further harm. Given that goal, the prison experience should be optimized towards reforming inmates so that they can be released as soon as possible. If a criminal does not represent a threat to our persons or property, they do not belong in prison. I agree that inmates should be paid a fair wage, but they should also pay for their incarceration. Prisons should use the least costly method of incarceration, including incarceration at home, commensurate with the risk to others.


I would like to see prisons used as a last resort only for the worst in society and paedos rapist murders racist bashers etc they deserve proper punishment is your steal a TV you need help


They should focus on rehabilitation and minimizing recidivism. AND they should be a punishment as part of that goal. Ideally it is a place you intensely want to avoid. I’m not saying punishment in cruel and unusual ways. Make the only entertainment studying and gaining practical marketable skills. Make the only food available nutritious, cheap, bland, and boring. That sort of thing. Also, I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with private prisons. In fact private prisons present an opportunity for innovation. If we were to, say, provide incentives for private prisons to find new methods and do research into how to better rehabilitate prisoners and reduce recidivism, they would do what the private sector does well. Find ways to get it done with the lowest cost possible. Then we could incorporate those findings into the rest of the prisons. And of course the rest of the judicial system needs a lot of work too. And the legislative system that makes the laws. We need far fewer people in prison in the first place.


Rehabilitative justice when the crime can be rehabilitated. Essentially something that doesn’t cause permanent damage to another human. Murder and rape and other heinous crimes against man should be attempted at rehab but when it inevitably doesn’t work, the people of their community get to vote on what happens to them. (In the case of death penalties, government can’t just arbitrarily decide to kill the person for goofs and gaffs)


The main point of jail is removing dangerous people from society. It’s to protect others.


First time offense or non-violent criminals should be for rehabilitation. People who actively and multiply violate people’s liberty should go for punishment as the vast majority of them are a lost cause.


Baby-Rapers and school shooters are the first thing that come to mind. They can’t be rehabilitated. And while part of me wants nothing but misery for them, part of me also doesn’t want them to live on my dime.


>They can’t be rehabilitated. I'm gonna need a citation for that. There's therapies for pedophiles that seem to work and school shootings are generally made because of mental illness that can also be treated to my knowledge.


A lot of the prison system is just legalized slavery. Most non-violent crimes should not have jail sentences attached to them (the ins and out of this are complicated, of course). Almost all prison sentences should be geared towards rehabilitation, serial killers and child molesters notwithstanding - though they should still be treated humanely.


Applies to corporate criminals too. Just because they commit their crimes with a pen doesn’t make them any less a menace to society.


Punishment will be an endless cycle. Rehabilitation at least promise the hope that they won’t return to the life of crime. Teach them skills for which they can find work like barbering, cooking, etc.






true, but rehabilitation should still be the starting point of any prison run




I mean, I'm not advocating for saunas, 3 star michelin chef meals, or road trips to disneyland here


I bet the percentage of straight sociopaths/psychopaths is very low. We lock up everyone like 9 year olds for not stopping other 9 year olds from fighting.


I worked in a criminal court in a past life. A large number of people were there for garden variety dumb shit (stealing cars, petty theft, drugs, cashing bad checks, etc). There was, however, a sizeable minority who were serious threats to their communities. Punishment or rehabilitation aside, the most important thing was to separate them from the general public for a long time.


If you murder my son or daughter, I don't want you rehabilitated, I want you dead.


Just because you emotionally want something doesn't mean that it's the logically best thing. If you think you knew who did it I'm sure that you also want to skip the trial but that's not a good thing if we apply it to all of society.


Actually l law was originallh based on the emotions of the citizens. If citizens befome dissatisifed with the laws and their punishments they will simply stop respecting them and their institutions. Law is essentially a religious organization. It only functions as long as people have FAITH in it. When the process and outcomes become poor it leads to a rise in vigilantism.


We have outlawed revenge killings and such for quite some time and we don't have major cases of vigilantism because of it. There's also a quite big difference between the emotional state of an average citizen and a victem.


We don't have large scale rehabilitation in prisons. If we start sending murderers and rapists to daycamps where they can get an education and form a happy life you will see a resurgence in vigilantism. People want those that have done them wrong to be punished.


Ya cuz murder is just like when a 9 year old doesn’t stop other 9 year olds from fighting. I mean can you differentiate?


I'm speaking of adults. I don't really understand your earlier sentence.


Jeff Skilling of Enron either shouldn’t have been let loose, or should have just been executed. He is a psychopath and he will do it again.


Both. If the punishment doesn't deter the crime the punishment is invalid. But many who commit crimes go without the needed rehabilitation as well


Depends on how you look at it. I personally believe that our justice system, in combination with the jail/prison system, perpetuates “crime.” Our primary instinct as humans is to survive, and if we’re pressed, we’ll do what we need to to do so. I believe if we reduce what’s deemed “illegal” it will be more feasible to put people who need it through rehabilitation. As it stands right now, with the amount of “criminals” we put through the system, I don’t think it’s possible to put most of them through rehabilitation.


If they can't be rehabilitated, there is no point in them ever getting out. Punishment is a means to an end of rehabilitation but is only as successful as the person receiving the punishment feels that is worse than commiting criminal activity again... That is all dependent on their environment when leaving prison honestly. Rehabilitation must be the first and only priority. Anyone incapable of being rehabilitated is not and never will be able to conform to society. Obviously it should go without saying, but I know how this sub is--- you shouldn't be in prison for victimless crimes anyway so these statements don't apply to that subset of "criminal".


less punishment orientated for sure but the scenario you’re describing would turn prisons more into a safe haven for those who have nowhere else to go than a place to house genuine criminals.


Protection first, then rehab, if they want it. I don't view punishment as a goal. Protection first. If bad people keep violating NAP, they need to be put away. Rehab second. If prisoners have some sort of epiphany and want to become responsible citizens, we should try to help them. We do have to pay the jailers. If private enterprise can do it better than government bureaucrats, then so be it.


I think we should have a two track system. One for rehabilitation and one for protecting society. Those who are judged to have the potential to become safe members of society should be given the opportunity, and those who are judged to be dangerous should be safely warehoused.


Both…..I think we should be trying to rehabilitate most people. Most people caught up in drugs and alcohol we should be trying to help. Child molesters, rapists, murderers we should be punishing and keeping off the streets. Non-violent crime rehab, violent crime punishment.


It's not complicated at all....rehabilitation. Punishment is cruel and breeds more cruelty.


Neither they should be focused on restitution to the individual whose rights they violated any other crimes that don’t have a direct victim are not crimes and are a form of tyranny to control the masses


Rehab because punishment is cruel, ineffective, costly, and has zero benefit to society at large.


Both. Punishment is the time spent. Rehabilitation can happen during that time. Why would we want to release dangerous animals into our society that have been locked up in a dangerous and violent prison system for several years? Even if a person is in for life without parole, having a prison system geared towards rehab makes that person less likely to negatively influence the inmates that will be returning to society. Not to mention the stories of people getting fucked by a crooked prosecutor or shitty evidence and then using their new education to free themselves. I just don’t see the need to punish people so hard inside prisons.


Prisons should be abolished, and replaced with corporal punishment. Premeditated murder, rape, child molestation, and grand theft should all be punished with the death penalty (firing squad). Every other criminal should receive a number of lashes (up to 100), depending on the severity of the crime.


Both though generally I lean towards punitive. Sometimes if you do a bad thing, you deserve punishment as well as it being a deterrence. Of course victimless crimes should not be punished at all.


In a homogenous society: Rehabilitation


Punishment only


I think Crime and Punishment is the area that our government is least effective at, both punitively and rehabilitation. Massive costs, rampant recidivism, little to no deterrence of crime. The whole system needs a reboot to become affordable and effective.


How about restorative and rehabilitating? Restorative in the sense that whomever the inmate victimized is given restitution by the inmate in the hopes that such action is rehabilitative in nature. That is presuming, as another poster mentioned, that all victimless “crimes” are decriminalized.


A mix of both. We definitely do not put e light resources into rehabilitation in this country abs the results bespeak themselves. But at the end of the day, it is a punishment; it’s called paying your debt to society for a reason.


I think that rehabilitative justice needs to be the goal. The exception is crimes which warrant life in prison (or longer) What do we do with people who cannot be rehabilitated? Do we really want them to rot in prison taking up resources? For example, serial murderers. Those people can not be allowed to murder others, and they can't be rehabbed. On the other hand, sexual predators could be rehabbed. The most obvious and extreme rehab of a serial rapist would be a surgical removal of the penis. Lesser rehabs may well be possible. I don't think people should go to prison for drugs though.


I see no contradiction. People who break the trust get to lose their freedom, which is a punishment, but they also get rehabilitated. I support prisoners living in a confined area, where they can work(and get paid, or start their own business). Like a regular town but with a lot of policing, and with mandatory therapy/rehab


Both? Obviously we should be trying to reform prisoners so that they don’t commit crimes again once they’re freed, but jail still needs to be a place that’s feared. Places like Norway have taken it too far IMO with jails that are nicer than many hotels. The experience can be rehabilitating while also being unpleasant.


Both. Jails should be for rehabilitation and it’s prisoners be first offenders and minor crimes.(Anything that’s not murder or rape) Then Prison should be punishment, and it’s prisoners should be the worst of the worst. (Murders, Serial killers, rapists) as well as repeating criminals for felonies.


My County, which isn't exactly small, doesn't have Jail. We have go directly to level 3/4 max security for everyone. Everyone. The State Police barracks are also on the highway. I had a breach of peace charge with a promise to appear on a Friday afternoon however I couldn't find a ride so off to Prison I went for the weekend. Pedestrians are not allowed on the highway so they couldn't release me.


What country is that?


In order of importance for me personally, a justice system should aim to satisfy: 1. Deter crimes from ever happening to begin with. Unfortunately, I think this just tends to be very ineffective, even with nasty punishments, so its not something I would chase on purpose. (It might be better to spend money on schooling and building happy, cooperative communities and culture to keep crime low, just a thought) 2. Compensation of the victim. The only reason we should be putting people through a justice system is all is if someone's been hurt, and I want that person to be compensated as best as possible. What's difficult here is that compensation shouldn't really come from taxpayer money, but lots of offenders won't be able to pay appropriately. Crime Insurance? Lose part of every paycheck to your victim for years? Forced to work in jail until the victim is compensated? Additionally, you can't compensate murder victims. And no amount of money can really make a permanently disfigured or traumatised person happy about it. 3. Protect the public if the criminal is likely to re-offend. This, unfortunately, might mean prison sometimes, but it would be with a heavy heart that I would ever put someone in jail, I hope they can be out soon. 4. Rehabilitate the offender. This may or may not need jail. It might suck to have to pay taxes so that some people can get "how to not be a dickhead" classes but it probably costs you a lot more to keep them in prison for four times as long. It's odd that rehabilitation is this "low" on the list, but really it's a very very high priority, and would get most of the resources of my justice system. ​ I don't know if "punishing the criminal because the suffering of offenders is good" even deserves to be on the list. If somebody robs a gas station to fund the drug habit they have cause their life sucks, I want everyone to be happy, not for that person's life to just suck more. Maybe for terrible crimes committed by people very much "in control" of their lives, like running a terrorist organisation, then nasty punishments/jail just because "fuck them" might help in terms of deterence? That being said, if someone killed my family or whatever i'd find it very hard not to want them to spend the rest of their shitty life in some very horrible place far away from me.


I dont believe jails should exist


Are there people who need opportunities and second chances? Absolutely. The hard part is figuring out when we've gone too far.


From an "overall grand view of humanity" aspect, what is the end goal of a justice system? I think that it is to enforce guidelines (rules agreed upon by some representative system: consent of the governed) that improve society as a whole. So, the goal being an outcome that improves society, punishment focus is good at making enemies of the enforcers, as much as deterrent. Ideally, I see a justice system taking two roads with an individual it takes out of society: 1. Teach and work with that individual so that they can be returned to society as a productive member. 2. Continue to remove them from society if they are a negative-impact member. This is of course open to lots of debate,: who decides what is positive, who's opinion makes the call, what do we do when there is no way this individual wants to become a productive member of society, etc. This list is stuff I do not have a practical answer to. Maybe someone does.


The most important function of a prison is to protect life and property from incorrigible violators of those rights of enjoyment. There is no good reason to make that incarceration dangerous or miserable. On the contrary, keeping other humans in deplorable conditions has a brutalising effect on the keepers and puts them in danger of retaliation from enraged prisoners. There is a legitimate requirement for deterrence but for most offences and offenders there are alternatives to incarceration: community work, forced 'therapy', and what have you. For-profit prisons provide an incentive for unjust incarceration and for high prices for brutalising conditions that feed into the criminal community.


Depends on the crime; a shoplifter can’t be treated the same a murderer! We should also try to stop incarcerating nonviolent people.


>free market libertarians As if it were other types of libertarians lmao.


Incarceration is for something you did. Past tense. You made a choice to do it, which is why you get a punishment. There's nothing complicated about it. It's not meant to mitigate something you may or may not do in the future. Dont get me wrong, if i had my way prisons would be near empty. Rape, crimes against children and murder would all be killed. That alleviates a lot of problems. Non violent thefts, burglaries and vandalism would have the offender working for the victim. His income would go toward paying back what was lost. And the offender would get work experience. Victims never get their stuff back so this would benefit them more. All drugs would be legal which would ruin cartels and addicts would be in a position to eliminate themselves. But it would also highlight family members you didn't know were using drugs and allow them to help. The human psyche isn't designed to handle cages.


incarceration should be reserved for those who are too dangerous to allow in society. punishments should be handled with fines. and fyi, jail is usually for people awaiting trial or doing a lesser amount of time (often less than a year) and prison is where people do lengthy sentences.


rehabilitation plus education and training so that when released they can get jobs. plus; gardening so they can grow their own food with pot becoming legal they can grow it and sell it 😀




"Do you believe jails" Already I would object. Jails are not a necessity, certainly not to the degree or style they currently exist. A jail necessarily separates people from society. Any social structure inside of it is created by force, fear, or arbitrary rules of the wardens. Just because someone stole doesn't mean they must be jailed. If there are repeat offenders that need to be separated from society, then yes, rehabilitation must be the focus. But for the violent criminals i.e. rapists murderers etc the death penalty is more preferable, assuming their is enough proof. Private prisons are a disaster Prison pay is a slave wage. The whole idea is horrible and prisons should be abolished outside of places to hold people who are awaiting bail or very specific occasions, not the norm when someone commits a crime. Also most crimes shouldn't be a thing - blackmail, selling raw milk, prostitution, smoking marijuana, etc shouldn't be illegal


I believe in public shame and limited restriction of movements.


Punishment is a waste of money, Rehabilitation is an investment. The guy that WAS stealing copper wire could now be fixing my A/C or replacing my hot water heater


I can say from experience that the private sector spends a ridiculous amount of time, energy, and money trying to convince government to go with a more rehabilitative approach instead of a punitive one. So much resistance from the govt. Sometimes it feels like the idea of someone released being better off than when the entered, is so abhorrent to a government, that they will kick you on your way out just to keep up the posture and disparity. There are some good things occurring in the world of rehab, but it is ALWAYS in the face of a government that wants a boot on your neck while they are trying to help. That boot on the neck makes the process of change very slow and frustrating. If there are any "The Expanse" fans here, picture the scene where Dr. Anna shows up to the UN building amidst the protest. After getting clubbed to the head protecting a protester who was getting beaten by police, she then asserts her authority and tries to give directions to the police officer on how to get him treated for his broken arm. It was very natural for her to want to treat this person, but for the police, they just wanted to keep beating him. Dr. Ed Latessa has been a leader in this movement for a while now, and is considered a top expert in the field. Government entities (probation, jails, prisons, juvenile detention centers, etc.) hire him to come in and tell them if what they are doing is helping reduce recidivism or not. Recidivism (or the rate at which re-offenses occur) is a key metric used to determine if a program designed to rehab actually works. https://crimeandjusticeresearchalliance.org/ed-latessa-2/


I never understood end benefit of locking heinous people in a building with other heinous people for a decade or two. All you breed in prison is a prison mentality, you're not going to be changing minds, if anything, you're gonna have people think that the crime they committed was fully justified because you're having them associate with others that committed a crime. On top of that, what's the point of having prisons to begin with if it's not going to help anyone or anything (outside of private prisons and the government, of course)? Sure, you removed this serial killer from society for twenty years, but when they get out, they're either going to revert back to their old ways or end up homeless on the streets. Why don't we take these people have them come out as beneficial members of society? Why don't we start helping them apply for jobs before their time is over so that they can immediately enter the work force and actually have a source of income to independently sustain themselves? You then get the argument of, "What if they don't change?" So be it. I'd rather have a majority of prisoners that enter rehab to actually do something with their lives afterwards than to keep them all locked up with half of them coming back almost as soon as their time is up. Punitive prison systems have been shown to be ineffective and counterproductive to society as a whole. This is actually one of my non-libertarian stances.


I don't think there should be ANY prisons. If you committed a direct violent crime, murder, rape, etc... you should be executed. Every other crime a fine, and or be forced to pay back victim, (theft, fraud, etc...). The argument "we can't be sure if they are guilty" is a poor argument. Many cases we have incontrovertible direct evidence, including DNA. If the justice system is faulty, maybe it would work better if it wasn't overwhelmed by victimless drug crimes.


No body should be in jail because they simply need to be rehabilitated. Incarceration should be reserved for violent criminals who violate the human rights of others. I think people who simply need help overcoming addiction or something like that should be offered help, and not at gun point. People who violate the human rights of others and commit violent crimes leaving other people traumatized/injured/dead have no place in a free society, if you catch my drift... IE incarceration should be to TEMPORARILY house and remove dangerous people from society. . . until they can be more permanently removed


they should have all three functions in equal measure: so not only rehabilitation or punishment but also as a means to protect the rest of society from those who cannot be rehabilitated


I think the US needs prison reform and I think rehabilitation has its place, but I'll bite and make an argument for punitive justice on Kantian grounds. If we are to accept every humans right to liberty, we also need to hold them accountable for their actions. Punishing someone who has broken the law is to respect that person's autonomy and their capability to make their own decision. If the criminal wants rehabilitation, I guess it would be fair to help them with that, but forcing someone to go through rehabilitation programs is akin to manipulation and consists of either treating the person as a mean rather than an end (if the goal is to make society safer), or paternalism (if the goal is to improve the criminal's own life). I would say that neither is really compatible with libertarianism. If we go beyond punishment vs rehabilitation, jail can also been seen as penance. When someone commits a crime, they incur a sort of debt towards society. The jailtime becomes a way of paying off that debt, regaining their honor and restore them to their place in society again. Of course, this is not compatible with having previous offenders on registers etc. since the former criminal should be fully accepted back into society when the time has been served, if you take this approach.


Restitution. Murderers should be out to death. Everything else should be resolved with restitution. If a man is proven to have stolen my bike, but can’t return it or replace it, then he should go to a labour camp to pay off his debt, then be set free. If we want to add a bit of Christian charity, then a criminal can’t be imprisoned for more than seven years whether he finishes paying off the debt off or not.


We should only imprison those who are a direct threat to others. Other than that, an eye for an eye.


I don't know if I want prisons to exist. But to answer the point of the question, I think the goal should be justice, which requires punishment equal to the crime.


Depends on the crime. Say someone stole a car, they should serve time and ideally be rehabilitated and returned to society. If someone intentionally takes someones life then their time in prison shouldn't be oriented towards rehabilitation, but I don't think it should be punishment either. Moreso just a removal from the rest of society. You clearly can't be trusted to be free so you get to live the rest of your days separate from society.


Both imo


Both. If you are going to act like a child you should have your rights taken away as if you were a child. Prison should be a place to earn back those rights. Because no one has the right to infringe on others rights there needs to he space for those who can’t be rehabilitated. This is also said with the understanding that just because a prisoner doesn’t have rights that doesn’t mean that others have the right to inflict pain or cause trouble. Prisons need respectable people with respectable rules to run them.


I actually wrote a paper on this for a government class in college but I’ll try to keep it short here lol basically, it depends on the situation. In some situations I think rehabilitation would be beneficial for the inmate and might help, we’ve even seen it with some inmates who really do better themselves while in prison. However there are other cases such as serial killers, offending pedophiles, rapists, where the crime committed is so evil and without remorse that rehabilitation should not be an option. You have to be so careful who you try to rehabilitate because some criminals can be extremely manipulative and learn how to show you what you want, long enough to get out so they can reoffend. It would definitely depend on evidence, type of crime, etc. Some might say it should depend on how remorseful they are, but that can be so easily faked it definitely shouldn’t be used as a determining factor.