The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Should they be used for:
A). Punishment
B). Rehabilitation?
Please explain your answer.
Thakyou!
This isn't any course or anything I have to do, I'm just curious what you lot think about this...
A). Punishment
B). Rehabilitation?
Please explain your answer.
Thakyou!
This isn't any course or anything I have to do, I'm just curious what you lot think about this...
Page:
True. Good point.
Maybe I'm getting old an cynical, but I think that some people are just beyond help. I just find it all a bit too New Labour to think it's possible to rehabilitate and then re-integrate some of the worst people on earth back into mainstream society. Long sentences certainly make me feel better having been a victim of violent crime in the past.
Maybe I'm getting old an cynical, but I think that some people are just beyond help. I just find it all a bit too New Labour to think it's possible to rehabilitate and then re-integrate some of the worst people on earth back into mainstream society. Long sentences certainly make me feel better having been a victim of violent crime in the past.
We used to have longer sentences and draconian punishments (as most here seem to be in favour of). And y'know what? Crime was still rife. So maybe, seeing as how bigger and nastier punishments just make bigger and nastier criminals, it's time to try something else?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
The thing with your ideas Light is that ignorance is bliss. Lock the bad guys up. And hope they aren't bad guys when they come out.
Prison is many things. It is a deterent to some. It contains others. It certainly punishes. Rarely though does it rehabilitate. Hence "once a crook always a crook".
Some people though you just can't rehabilitate. Some people are always going to be simply bad people. You can't change that.
But what can you do with so many unproductive people in society? It costs money to jail people. Rehab programs cost money. Everything costs money.
I certainly think that sentences are too short nowadays. But for them all to be lengthened would only overcrowd the jails still more and cost even more money. And that is another problem.
Life should mean life. It is ridiculous that if I walk out the door and murder someone in cold blood I could be out of jail within 7 years. That isn't right. If life did mean life it would possibly be more humane to have a death penalty rather than live forever in a cell. Take Myra Hyndley for instance. Just a thought. But only for definite convictions, ones with DNA evidence or something.
But what about the lesser criminals? Burglars, fraudsters etc.
Longer sentences. If for a robbery you got 10 years for your first conviction then it is more likely to put you off re offending than if you were only in for 3 years. It would punish you for what you did. Hopefully it would be possible to rehabilitate at the same time. But the public at large should be the primary concern when dealing with criminals.
On the subject of the west wing, in a survey, around 85% of Americans would vote for President Bartlett if he were real. It is one of the best programs on TV.
Prison is many things. It is a deterent to some. It contains others. It certainly punishes. Rarely though does it rehabilitate. Hence "once a crook always a crook".
Some people though you just can't rehabilitate. Some people are always going to be simply bad people. You can't change that.
But what can you do with so many unproductive people in society? It costs money to jail people. Rehab programs cost money. Everything costs money.
I certainly think that sentences are too short nowadays. But for them all to be lengthened would only overcrowd the jails still more and cost even more money. And that is another problem.
Life should mean life. It is ridiculous that if I walk out the door and murder someone in cold blood I could be out of jail within 7 years. That isn't right. If life did mean life it would possibly be more humane to have a death penalty rather than live forever in a cell. Take Myra Hyndley for instance. Just a thought. But only for definite convictions, ones with DNA evidence or something.
But what about the lesser criminals? Burglars, fraudsters etc.
Longer sentences. If for a robbery you got 10 years for your first conviction then it is more likely to put you off re offending than if you were only in for 3 years. It would punish you for what you did. Hopefully it would be possible to rehabilitate at the same time. But the public at large should be the primary concern when dealing with criminals.
On the subject of the west wing, in a survey, around 85% of Americans would vote for President Bartlett if he were real. It is one of the best programs on TV.
I don't think rehabilitation works for a big majority of hardened offenders,their just not interested in normal society.
It has a greater effect on lesser and truly sorry prisoners,but a bank robber or ABH offender will just use it as an easy option.
It has a greater effect on lesser and truly sorry prisoners,but a bank robber or ABH offender will just use it as an easy option.
Light wrote:
> Is it any good? I've never bothered with it but heard lotsa good
> stuff about it.
Put it this way;
It's a drama show about a Democratic Presidency. Martin Sheen plays President Bartlett, during the Iraq War he spoke out against it every chance he could.
At times it's unashamedly patriotic, but not uncritical of US policy and history - Toby Ziegler especially (another character, the quote which should tell you about him is this; Leo McGarry (Chief Of Staff) says's to his team after the President has seen them during one season 1 episode, "what are we doing today?" Toby quips back, "Shall we invade a foreign country that cannot possibly defend itself against us, 'cause we haven't really done that yet."
It's generally pretty intelligent stuff (for tv) and does cover a lot of topics and situations - everything from GM foods, China, Iraq, assassinations, WMD's, everything basically.
I love it, and I'd honestly say that if the Democrats ever had a candidate like Martin Sheen's character then I'd be fully behind him.
Well worth spending money getting the DVD's, whilst E4 does show it, they do it with adverts which wrecks the flow of the show, so at around £25 per boxset ( 2 sets make a season, 24 in each) it is well worth the money, alternatively complete sets of each season released so far ( 1 + 2 ) are available at around £50.
The fact it's a democrat administration and I still like it should indicate how good it is. :)
> Is it any good? I've never bothered with it but heard lotsa good
> stuff about it.
Put it this way;
It's a drama show about a Democratic Presidency. Martin Sheen plays President Bartlett, during the Iraq War he spoke out against it every chance he could.
At times it's unashamedly patriotic, but not uncritical of US policy and history - Toby Ziegler especially (another character, the quote which should tell you about him is this; Leo McGarry (Chief Of Staff) says's to his team after the President has seen them during one season 1 episode, "what are we doing today?" Toby quips back, "Shall we invade a foreign country that cannot possibly defend itself against us, 'cause we haven't really done that yet."
It's generally pretty intelligent stuff (for tv) and does cover a lot of topics and situations - everything from GM foods, China, Iraq, assassinations, WMD's, everything basically.
I love it, and I'd honestly say that if the Democrats ever had a candidate like Martin Sheen's character then I'd be fully behind him.
Well worth spending money getting the DVD's, whilst E4 does show it, they do it with adverts which wrecks the flow of the show, so at around £25 per boxset ( 2 sets make a season, 24 in each) it is well worth the money, alternatively complete sets of each season released so far ( 1 + 2 ) are available at around £50.
The fact it's a democrat administration and I still like it should indicate how good it is. :)
Doesn't the President have a lisp in the West Wing? If he does it was obviously a fixed election, no one would vote for a belisped man.
Prisons are bad because you get tvs and loadsa mates and you can play pool wheneva you like without like even payin!!!! its ridiculous innit
Prisons are bad because you get tvs and loadsa mates and you can play pool wheneva you like without like even payin!!!! its ridiculous innit
Belldandy wrote:
> I'd agree with Light on the education thing, though admittedly I'm
> influenced on this partly by watching The West Wing where one
> character described education as the 'silver bullet'.
>
> I like the West Wing, but I can never be bothered to watch it on TV
> so I buy the DVD sets instead :)
Is it any good? I've never bothered with it but heard lotsa good stuff about it.
> I'd agree with Light on the education thing, though admittedly I'm
> influenced on this partly by watching The West Wing where one
> character described education as the 'silver bullet'.
>
> I like the West Wing, but I can never be bothered to watch it on TV
> so I buy the DVD sets instead :)
Is it any good? I've never bothered with it but heard lotsa good stuff about it.
I'd agree with Light on the education thing, though admittedly I'm influenced on this partly by watching The West Wing where one character described education as the 'silver bullet'.
I like the West Wing, but I can never be bothered to watch it on TV so I buy the DVD sets instead :)
I like the West Wing, but I can never be bothered to watch it on TV so I buy the DVD sets instead :)
Already jotted down some thoughts on this one...
I suppose the first question should be "Why do we have prisons in the first place?” which is not as straightforward as it seems. Are they for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, or containment? But more than that, why are they actually needed? Large-scale prisons are a comparatively recent innovation. Before that, the main alternative to being condemned to death was banishment. This took many forms as society progressed; in prehistoric until the dark ages this generally took the form of banishment from a tribal territory. A man alone in the land of a hostile tribe could look forward to a fairly short life packed with interesting times. As we moved into the medieval and beyond, banishment (or at least the incidences that made it into the history books) became the province of the rich and powerful. It was rare that a king could feel so secure in his position that he could afford to have an influential rival executed, so banishment to the continent became the alternative. When one bears in mind that this occasionally resulted in said rival coming back at the head of an army of continental mercenaries, this could be said to have been a bit of a rubbish method of disposing of undesirable elements.
In the time of the Empire banishment became the exile of thieves and murderers (amongst others) to penal colonies, America until they kicked us out, and Australia after that. Not for nothing are Aussie soap opera's referred to as criminal...
And so we get to today, where banishment is a thing of the past. And why? Well, if one looks at the whistle stop history of it, one can see that the objective behind it is the same in each case; send the offender far away where they can't bother us any more. No thought was given to what happens to them once they were banished, because it ceased to be our problem. Someone else had to deal with them in whatever way they saw fit; we simply stopped worrying about them. This is perfectly fair and reasonable when you have somewhere to send them.
However, I would say that our attitude towards prisons isn't a million miles away from our ancestors’ attitudes toward banishment. As the prison population are for the most part put back into society after having served their time, our complete indifference as to what happens to them whilst they are in there is perhaps not the best way of dealing with things. At present, our prisons are little more than warehouses for criminals. So in that respect, the main purpose of our prisons is containment. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Certainly, no one in their right mind would want criminals freed and at large after they'd done something deserving of punishment. So prisons fulfill the roll that banishment once did; removing an undesirable from society.
They do this by confining criminals together in enforced cohabitation. Being human beings like the rest of us they intermingle, befriend some and antagonise others. Social hierarchies are formed (e.g. Sex offenders at the bottom, gang bosses at the top) and rules are created and observed. If broken, then the prisoners deal punishment themselves. In other words, a sub-culture forms. The longer one is exposed to this sub-culture, the more ingrained it becomes and the less likely one becomes to be able to live by the rules of normal society. In other words, they become institutionalised.
It seems to me that we are storing up trouble for ourselves when we store people in prison. They rarely learn the error of their ways or get the opportunity to improve themselves via increasing their qualifications (either practical or academic) so there is little or no rehabilitation on offer. As to punishment and deterrence, they fulfill that function the first time someone is sent there. But I would say that it is because a first time prisoner suffers fear of the unknown. Sometimes that first prison experience is enough to deter someone from serious crime (I'm tempted to make a crude pun about them never forgetting their first time, especially when one considers the part that fear of being raped in the showers has in the deterrence value of prisons). All too often though, new tricks are learned and the criminal becomes more alienated from society.
There are two schools of thought about this. To the right, the approach is to build more prisons so that we can contain more people for longer periods of time. To the left we have the desire for rehabilitation and understanding of the offender. Somewhere in the middle (although admittedly glancing off to the left) is me. Crime does need to be punished. It's just that I tend to believe that people are inclined to make mistakes in their lives, and blanket condemnation followed by a process that will incline them more toward criminal activity does not seem to me to be the wisest idea. Certainly they should be imprisoned (if only because we have no realistic alternative; I mentioned banishment earlier, perhaps once we have the technology for establishing permanent dwellings on the Moon and Mars we will see the re-appearance of penal colonies...). It's what we do with them once they're there that I take issue with.
And yet again, I'm going to cop out. Having stated that I think our current system doesn't work, I can't offer a functional alternative. I can offer idea's of course, and I've already hinted at them. Improving the educational facilities within prisons so that an unskilled and uneducated prisoner can finish his sentence and have either a trade to go into or qualifications to help him get work would be a good start. At the same time, one must remember that a crime was committed and this should be punished, so more Spartan surroundings and a strictly regimented lifestyle for all prisoners could be imposed.
The flip side of this view is "Why should criminals have the opportunity to better themselves when citizens don't have access to the level of education that they would like?" Well, here's fun; why not try improving access to education for everyone? I don't mean for the prison issue to be looked at in isolation. I keep harping on about society, and our prison population is just one of society's problems. If, when one goes through school, one has access to a good education (by which I mean both academic and practical; I find it disgusting that someone who could be a top class electrician or builder gets a hard time through school because of our emphasis on academia. As always though, that is a rant for another day...) then it is less likely that one will commit a crime. I say that because one of the main background factors to crime is poverty and social deprivation. If we think of prison as a second chance to get this education, but also incorporate the element of punishment, then we deter people from crime by using both carrot and stick. At least that way, when society does encounter repeat offenders and pathological criminals, we will have clean hands and a clean conscience when dealing with them.
I suppose the first question should be "Why do we have prisons in the first place?” which is not as straightforward as it seems. Are they for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, or containment? But more than that, why are they actually needed? Large-scale prisons are a comparatively recent innovation. Before that, the main alternative to being condemned to death was banishment. This took many forms as society progressed; in prehistoric until the dark ages this generally took the form of banishment from a tribal territory. A man alone in the land of a hostile tribe could look forward to a fairly short life packed with interesting times. As we moved into the medieval and beyond, banishment (or at least the incidences that made it into the history books) became the province of the rich and powerful. It was rare that a king could feel so secure in his position that he could afford to have an influential rival executed, so banishment to the continent became the alternative. When one bears in mind that this occasionally resulted in said rival coming back at the head of an army of continental mercenaries, this could be said to have been a bit of a rubbish method of disposing of undesirable elements.
In the time of the Empire banishment became the exile of thieves and murderers (amongst others) to penal colonies, America until they kicked us out, and Australia after that. Not for nothing are Aussie soap opera's referred to as criminal...
And so we get to today, where banishment is a thing of the past. And why? Well, if one looks at the whistle stop history of it, one can see that the objective behind it is the same in each case; send the offender far away where they can't bother us any more. No thought was given to what happens to them once they were banished, because it ceased to be our problem. Someone else had to deal with them in whatever way they saw fit; we simply stopped worrying about them. This is perfectly fair and reasonable when you have somewhere to send them.
However, I would say that our attitude towards prisons isn't a million miles away from our ancestors’ attitudes toward banishment. As the prison population are for the most part put back into society after having served their time, our complete indifference as to what happens to them whilst they are in there is perhaps not the best way of dealing with things. At present, our prisons are little more than warehouses for criminals. So in that respect, the main purpose of our prisons is containment. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Certainly, no one in their right mind would want criminals freed and at large after they'd done something deserving of punishment. So prisons fulfill the roll that banishment once did; removing an undesirable from society.
They do this by confining criminals together in enforced cohabitation. Being human beings like the rest of us they intermingle, befriend some and antagonise others. Social hierarchies are formed (e.g. Sex offenders at the bottom, gang bosses at the top) and rules are created and observed. If broken, then the prisoners deal punishment themselves. In other words, a sub-culture forms. The longer one is exposed to this sub-culture, the more ingrained it becomes and the less likely one becomes to be able to live by the rules of normal society. In other words, they become institutionalised.
It seems to me that we are storing up trouble for ourselves when we store people in prison. They rarely learn the error of their ways or get the opportunity to improve themselves via increasing their qualifications (either practical or academic) so there is little or no rehabilitation on offer. As to punishment and deterrence, they fulfill that function the first time someone is sent there. But I would say that it is because a first time prisoner suffers fear of the unknown. Sometimes that first prison experience is enough to deter someone from serious crime (I'm tempted to make a crude pun about them never forgetting their first time, especially when one considers the part that fear of being raped in the showers has in the deterrence value of prisons). All too often though, new tricks are learned and the criminal becomes more alienated from society.
There are two schools of thought about this. To the right, the approach is to build more prisons so that we can contain more people for longer periods of time. To the left we have the desire for rehabilitation and understanding of the offender. Somewhere in the middle (although admittedly glancing off to the left) is me. Crime does need to be punished. It's just that I tend to believe that people are inclined to make mistakes in their lives, and blanket condemnation followed by a process that will incline them more toward criminal activity does not seem to me to be the wisest idea. Certainly they should be imprisoned (if only because we have no realistic alternative; I mentioned banishment earlier, perhaps once we have the technology for establishing permanent dwellings on the Moon and Mars we will see the re-appearance of penal colonies...). It's what we do with them once they're there that I take issue with.
And yet again, I'm going to cop out. Having stated that I think our current system doesn't work, I can't offer a functional alternative. I can offer idea's of course, and I've already hinted at them. Improving the educational facilities within prisons so that an unskilled and uneducated prisoner can finish his sentence and have either a trade to go into or qualifications to help him get work would be a good start. At the same time, one must remember that a crime was committed and this should be punished, so more Spartan surroundings and a strictly regimented lifestyle for all prisoners could be imposed.
The flip side of this view is "Why should criminals have the opportunity to better themselves when citizens don't have access to the level of education that they would like?" Well, here's fun; why not try improving access to education for everyone? I don't mean for the prison issue to be looked at in isolation. I keep harping on about society, and our prison population is just one of society's problems. If, when one goes through school, one has access to a good education (by which I mean both academic and practical; I find it disgusting that someone who could be a top class electrician or builder gets a hard time through school because of our emphasis on academia. As always though, that is a rant for another day...) then it is less likely that one will commit a crime. I say that because one of the main background factors to crime is poverty and social deprivation. If we think of prison as a second chance to get this education, but also incorporate the element of punishment, then we deter people from crime by using both carrot and stick. At least that way, when society does encounter repeat offenders and pathological criminals, we will have clean hands and a clean conscience when dealing with them.
i dont know the success rate of punishment or rehabilitation, but i would think that different people would need different types of methods. it would be good, if after sentencing, a psychologist or a worker like that could suggest to the judge as to what happens to the guy. generally i agree but i would approach it like this. first time. night or so in a cell on there own, then a few days of rehab (to really drill it in). known offenders should be (having recieved rehab once) rehabbed once more, then you could see next time if theyve taken anything in. if they offend again, put them in for a decent time. i think cells should be smaller and just have one in each and make them pretty much sound proof.
i think its not good to have just 2 options, which in themselves have no or very little difference within them. i liked the thought about the 22,000 a year plan (it showed that the government wanted another way, that wasnt A) or B) ), but it was obviously a poor idea.
i really hate crooks, because they think they can just get something without working hard for it. i would like it if my crook was punished, but if that doesnt stop him then its pointless. rehab or another way may be more effective.
i think its not good to have just 2 options, which in themselves have no or very little difference within them. i liked the thought about the 22,000 a year plan (it showed that the government wanted another way, that wasnt A) or B) ), but it was obviously a poor idea.
i really hate crooks, because they think they can just get something without working hard for it. i would like it if my crook was punished, but if that doesnt stop him then its pointless. rehab or another way may be more effective.
Page: