> |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
> |> >unjustified.
> |> 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?
> The prison industry gives work to a large number of people, esp. in
> countries with a large prison population. In their view, rehabilitation
> might equal unemployment. Considering the excellent track record of using
> certain chemical compunds to reprogram the human biocomputer in convicts,
> I find it remarkable that these results have totally been ignored by most
> correctional departments. This suggests to me that the traditional prison
> paradigm, with its labour-intensive methodology, mainly thrives on the public
> outcry for revenge on criminals, so well acted on by votes-hungry politruks,
> and on the conservative impetus of the nomenklatura, the prison industry
> people in this case, who do not want any changes of their livelihood. The
> fact that in most countries private companies do not own prisons might also
> have an impact (state ownership = ineffectual enterprise).
> Any questions? :)
What behavior modifying chemicals do you suggest to inject into the citizens'
brains? Have you tried them?
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/ Confucious says, "My name is Confucious."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:27 MDT