|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? :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:27 MDT