Brian D Williams wrote:
> >3) there is no evidence that being incarcerated for a length of
> >time is a useful deterrent or actually rehabilitates. There is
> >considerable evidence that the cost to society is largely
> Ah, deterrence rears it's ugly head. The incarceration is primarily
> for punishment not deterrence, although proper punishment should
> have a deterring effect. The main idea of incarceration is to place
> them in a controlled, monitored enviroment where they can be
> prevented from commiting any further criminal acts.
But punishment looks a lot like revenge. If it is not a deterrent and
does not rehabilitate what and who is it for?
Segregating them from the population is a different beast than
punishment, deterrence or rehabilitation.
> Rehabilitation should be tried where possible, not all prisoners
> qualify, an idea sorely lacking in our current system.
> Rehabilitation should be a voluntary process on the part of the
> criminal, they should demonstrate a willingness to change and be
> required to work their way back into society.
> Politicians reading this have my permission to dedicate the entire
> portion of my considerable tax load (did taxes last night) to
Are you crazy? A larger pot of money put into prisons will simply
increase the payoff for abuses laws and incarceration policies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:26 MDT