Inprisioned or in treatment?

Lol okay I will tackle two views with this post

I agree that helping frequent offenders might be wrong. However are you aware that tax payers pay just as much to keep these people in prison? You are forgetting salaries of the jail guards, the wardens, the maintenance and other staff, the facilities which includes the jails themselves. All of these are paid by tax payers as well. In fact I believe that prisons cost more. If an offender gets imprisoned he stays there as a free loader while tax payers still have to pay for his food, clothing, shelter etc. But when he gets treated successfully he becomes an asset to the labor force. But yes it's true that there is the risk that the offender might commit another crime again.


1. Ad hominem: You are not supposed to attack someone personally in an argument. Calling people stupid is unwarranted.
2.Appeal to Fear: You give examples such as "Butcher your family" to scare people to side with you, to make them feel that the opposition will lead them to lose their love ones when in truth, that happening has a chance of a mere 1/1000.


Another Ad Hominem. Basically you just told everyone what a narrow minded person you are who never looks at the views of the opposition. I doubt anyone who read this would ever take your posts seriously from this point onwards.

Oookay, I won't bother preaching you on your oh-so err... whatever. I just want to tell you this. You can't get your point across with a fist. you just can't point with it. /lamejoke. seriously though. even if you beat the shit outta someone, that doesn't prove anything, other than you beat the shit outta someone. If you want to get your so-called 'point' across, you use your mouth ,and in this case, posts and decent arguments. This section is called Serious Discussion for a reason; We discuss a bout the topic, not beat the shit outta each other. That is all.

Speaking of logical fallacies, I believe that this is a non-sequitur. This isn't about victims but the offenders and how we should manage them. (There may be an appeal to emotion within there as well)

LOL! We got ourselves an internet tough guy here. Man, are you that much of a fucking gorilla that the first thing you think of when you see something you disagree with is "HULK SMASH!"

Whoa wait. So he really thinks with his fists? Interesting.

While your at it, you should tell him that threatening others by means of physical violence, raw physical violence for lesser reasons etc can get him into jail with the "scum" he hates and it makes him look uncivilized to attempt to settle an arguement that way.
Anyways back to the main topic. I don't think that psychological help is all that useful. The root of the problem can be somewhat psychological, but forcing criminals to work inside the prison would be alot better in my opinion, giving them a wage for that ofc, so they can start a new life easier once they are released again (seeing that alot of thieves and robbers are repeating their crimes due to the fact that they have nothing left to be make a new start with, so they resort to their old ways again).For people that murdered people with a lesser reason (greed / revenge etc.), keep them in the jail and let them do a job there, making a psychological check every 15 years to see if they regret what they have done and if they pass, release them.
As for sexual offenders.... it's a complicated thing, as they can still seek revenge on the victim for being thrown into the slammer etc once they get out again, not to mention go for others and history has proven that if there is one thing people don't forget, it is the feeling of power and being feared by others.

Guinea pigs! J/k, actually I think some prisoners should have a combination of both imprisonment and treatment. Either treat the prisoners during their sentence, or have them instituted after they serve inprisonment, either way is fine just as long as there is both punishment and reforment procedures taking place. Sure, there's no real guarantee that they'll be reformed, but its better than throwing them back out on the streets after a couple years of adult "time out".

[size=5]Guinea pigs ftw though...[/h]

While I feel a bit sorry for Audio about the direction this thread has taken, I think it proves my point pretty nicely.



Ah, reforming criminals through labour. An old favorite of the crowd, from chain-gangs to the GULag. Only that it doesn't work.
Re-integration into society is all good and well, but the idea of reform through forced labour is risible.


That's a nice, romantic story, but I am afraid this is not how prisons work, at all. I urge everyone clinging to this idea to delve into the works of Goffman (or any other scientifc treatise on the issue since the seventies). Prisons keep convicts separate from normal society, nothing more, nothing less, with all the teeth-shattering consequences.



Dr. Mengele is on the phone again, I put him on hold. He's still eager to talk to you and is very upset you didn't return his call last time.

The treatment program has the potential to cost more and here's my explanation:

The authorities are definitely not going to let the criminals go their own way to attend counseling of their own accord. They're going to have to ensure that they go to counseling and make sure they are kept from society before graduating from their treatment. Then what's needed is a compound to house these offenders. Sounds a lot like prison. Not only that, since it's not prison, it means they're going to need higher standards of living. Probably will cost more for upkeep. Furthermore, we need people to serve, keep the compound running and people to guard these arrestees from entering society. Sounds a lot like jail guards, wardens and maintenance. Then we need to pay for the counselors themselves and probably a place for them to stay near the compound. So not only are we paying for what we already are, we're paying for a little more luxury and the counselors and their housing too. Now tell me, which will eventually cost more?

Dont you agree that every 15 years is abit... To little? After all, a man 50 years of age going into prison would have 2 chances to get back out. Not the best motivation right?



Fatality.


And about wether to counsel or imprison... It's simple, put them in jail, have them observed in behaviour. If they show good signs, try to counsel them. Try getting them to work for privilidges inside prison. Get him to learn a trade.
TEACH him/her how it's supposed to be.

And if they don't show this possible prospect? Then screw them. Don't waste money on nutcracks.

I think this sums up the misunderstandings, I'm not talking about abolishing the current penal system, I mean to add counsel to allow inmates to explore what they did with a guide, rather than taking an "adult time out", as someone said.

Better living conditions aren't needed, really two chairs and an empty cell will do. And, salary for psychiatrists costs less than repeat offenders. This could solve prison overcrowding in the long run.

Also, in practice, repeated sessions with a psychiatrist could give better opportunities for parole (rather than an "evaluation" once every ___ years), and help inmates prepare for release, instead of violently throwing them out.

In society, convicts in like programs would be required to go on probation, including ongoing therapy sessions to ensure integration. Serious criminals, like murderers and sex offenders, would operate under the same rules, but while under council, could have the therapist sign for more freedoms. Like letters of recommendation for prospective employers, allowing sex offenders to attend church (religion is important for several kinds of recovery), and the like.
Penalties for not attending are the same as regular probation, or in the long run criminals lose the freedoms that the therapist signed for. It is a choice, but gives greater forgiveness for lesser crimes and helps those who don't have another way to live find one.

I said 15 years partly as a random value, however I think 15 years after killing someone or violating someone is a normal sentence you get for murder / rapeing etc. So basically either they learn their lesson or they get the same time to think about their behaviour again.

---
Regarding the earlier thing with forced work:
Forced work wasn't an accurate term. What I meant was the possibility to learn a profession and offer a possibility to work in the prison etc, not as a way for them to repent or the like, but to
a) have a certain amount of money once they are released to start a normal life
b) to be able to find a job and thus being able to substain themselves
Those who e.g. rob / steal etc due to the fact that they have no education, even if they would have liked to receive it, would welcome such offers and it would lower the amount of people repeating those crimes.

This is because you're viewing the treatment program in such an expensive way. Remember, treatment does not necessarily mean "higher standards of living" because the process can be done inside the jail itself. You can hire counselors who will visit there while some guards standby to protect him from the criminal. If you do this then you eliminate most of your points and you will only have to add the salaries of the counselors. However the big difference is that in prison if not treated the prisoner would always become a burden to the tax payers while if treated he has a chance to become a part of the society once again and then becoming a part of the labor force. If you see things this way, in the long run treating SOME of the prisoners would cost less. By the way treatment is not for everybody, it should only be for selected prisoners who have shown the potential to change, this way the risks of him doing another crime would be lessened.

I'm shocked by the lack of sympathy here. I can confidently say that 85 percent of criminals resort to a life of crime because they have run out of options. Yes, there are indeed bloodthirsty psychopaths in the world who take pleasure in killing, but our culture is so hellbent on the condemnation of " bad people " that any form of crime is treated on the same level of homocide. For example, if you compare two different people, one is a thief and one is a killer, both of these two would have an equal amount of difficulty rejoining society due to their past. All I am trying to say is too many people are content with treating the symptoms and not the root problem.

Lol I missed that. Oh yes and there's also an appeal to pity there as well, and in some amount a false dilemma. Thank you for adding.

Point still stands. We would still be paying more with the treatment system. I doubt the people will change, but that's just me. I don't like leaving things to chance, especially if the probability involves innocent lives.

I think this needs a prime axample to work off of. So here you go LINK. If you want more info on the case, do it yourself, BUT BE WARNED, DON'T watch the video.

A fine example of how scumbag works with no mercy. Most idiots here clearly haven't seen the face of evil yet they talk as if they know shit. I'm old enough and seen and experience enough of how ruthless and evil some people can be.

A fine example of Biased Sample. Now you're sounding like a traumatized victim who cannot let go of the past. If this is true then we cannot blame you for how you look at criminals. I am not sure what happened, either you got anally raped by some drug addict or had your parents murdered in front of you but whatever it is you sure sound like it's something extreme.

Not all criminals are blood thirsty scumbags as you claim. Some of them are just victims of circumstances or poverty. As I said in a post before, I do not claim that treatment should be offered for all offenders. It's wrong to give this to death row convicts who committed mass murder and homicide as they might just add the counselor to their list. It should be for selected prisoners who have the potential to change. I see where your fear is coming from but it's a mistake to label a certain population because of your experience from one.

Lol, so this thread has become a duel-arranging thread. Seriously, stop with the taunts, guys.

On topic: I believe in giving a second chance.