rape justice?

[Aquitaine]

But many might suggest that three hots and a cot is even too good for a child rapist. There are plenty of people who would suggest that some criminals deserve the rape they might suffer in prison. if adequate supervision, three meals, and a place to sleep is too good, how can we even begin to talk about programs such as therapy?

You have states that further injustice does not equate to justice. How is a child rapist being best and killed or raped injustice? Does justice only qualify as such when it is legal?

And how can we justify spending money on counseling a child rapist who is raped in prison?

IMO a rapist of children should never be released, I don't even know if it's possible to rehabilitate them - not that they should be walking the streets anyway.

I only wish we spent as much on Pensioners as we do Prisoners.

 

[DallasApple]

IMO a rapist of children should never be released, I don't even know if it's possible to rehabilitate them - not that they should be walking the streets anyway.

My understanding they can never be "cured".They will always be tempted .

 

[Aquitaine]

My understanding they can never be "cured".They will always be tempted .

Yeah, and it's just too much of a risk. Keep 'em locked up. No "rehabilitation", please. :yes:

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, and it's just too much of a risk. Keep 'em locked up. No "rehabilitation", please. :yes:

Sure. I'm fine with locking up people who are a danger to others forever. I just don't think of it as "punishment" so much as a public safety issue.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, and it's just too much of a risk. Keep 'em locked up. No "rehabilitation", please. :yes:

While I certainly understand your perspective, I want to know why the perspective of "not only should they be locked up, they should suffer greatly for their crimes" is wrong. And if such a perspective is not wrong, why is "rape is a just consequence" wrong for this type of offender. And seeing how they do get out, despite the inability to be rehabilitated what if someone says, since the justice system doesn't offer strict enough sentencing, the prisoners should supplement the sentence with a raping?

 

[Aquitaine]

While I certainly understand your perspective, I want to know why the perspective of "not only should they be locked up, they should suffer greatly for their crimes" is wrong. And if such a perspective is not wrong, why is "rape is a just consequence" wrong for this type of offender. And seeing how they do get out, despite the inability to be rehabilitated what if someone says, since the justice system doesn't offer strict enough sentencing, the prisoners should supplement the sentence with a raping?

Sentence supplemented with a Raping? Would you support that idea if the prisoner was a Female?

In my opinion, if a dangerous individual is released early due to lenient sentencing, then their sentence should not be supplemented with Rape, but instead supplemented with more jail time. As in, they shouldn't be released at all, rather than letting them be released but giving them a Roger up the backside as a parting gift.

 

[Aquitaine]

Sure. I'm fine with locking up people who are a danger to others forever. I just don't think of it as "punishment" so much as a public safety issue.

Aye, I admit I do often let my emotions get the better of me with stuff like this, but yes the rational position is to detain them indefinitely in order to protect the public.

I won't however, be shedding any tears for them if they complain about the food or TV etc. :no:

 

[Curious George]

Sentence supplemented with a Raping? Would you support that idea if the prisoner was a Female?

In my opinion, if a dangerous individual is released early due to lenient sentencing, then their sentence should not be supplemented with Rape, but instead supplemented with more jail time. As in, they shouldn't be released at all, rather than letting them be released but giving them a Roger up the backside as a parting gift.

I am not saying I support the idea at all, I am saying that I understand the perspective of retributivists, I am only asking for the rationale which clearly makes such thinking wrong.

 

[Aquitaine]

I am not saying I support the idea at all, I am saying that I understand the perspective of retributivists, I am only asking for the rationale which clearly makes such thinking wrong.

Hmmm. Well I suppose if the prisoner hasn't committed a serious crime and will thus be rehabilitated, then deliberately making him suffer may make him more bitter against the establishment, possibly increasing the odds of reoffending.

On the other hand, if the prisoner is a lifer then what's the point in expending energy and resources into making him suffer anymore than he currently is? He's never gonna get out, but what's the point? It would just be a waste of time, money, manpower and energy etc.

What's your opinion on this?

 

[Curious George]

Hmmm. Well I suppose if the prisoner hasn't committed a serious crime and will thus be rehabilitated, then deliberately making him suffer may make him more bitter against the establishment, possibly increasing the odds of reoffending.

On the other hand, if the prisoner is a lifer then what's the point in expending energy and resources into making him suffer anymore than he currently is? He's never gonna get out, but what's the point? It would just be a waste of time, money, manpower and energy etc.

What's your opinion on this?

I think that the second could equally be argued, "what's the point in expending resources and energy to prevent his suffering."

The first one is definitely more resonate, and statistics seem to support this theory from my perspective, but I would imagine the only argument against such thinking is that the prisoner is not suppose to leave prison grateful for the experience, they are supposed to hate it and never want to go back. I also suspect that their feelings do not matter they are the bad guy would come into the discussion. However, recidivism is horribly high and to my knowledge the most recent studies favor your view. But that alone doesn't discount the retributive perspective. After all many people believe prison is and should be a.place of punishment.

 

[Titanic]

How horrible.

I wouldn't wish rape on my worst enemy. It's torture.

What about a guy like Ted Bundy?

 

[Aquitaine]

I think that the second could equally be argued, "what's the point in expending resources and energy to prevent his suffering."

The first one is definitely more resonate, and statistics seem to support this theory from my perspective, but I would imagine the only argument against such thinking is that the prisoner is not suppose to leave prison grateful for the experience, they are supposed to hate it and never want to go back. I also suspect that their feelings do not matter they are the bad guy would come into the discussion. However, recidivism is horribly high and to my knowledge the most recent studies favor your view. But that alone doesn't discount the retributive perspective. After all many people believe prison is and should be a.place of punishment.

Well, prison is by default a form of punishment: you get your freedom taken away. Even if you are intended to be rehabilitated.

 

[Curious George]

Well, prison is by default a form of punishment: you get your freedom taken away. Even if you are intended to be rehabilitated.

The utilitarian perspective looks at this less so. Utilitarians look to prisons for specific deterrence (the person cannot hurt anyone while locked up) general deterrence (others will not want to be locked up and therefore will not commit similar acts), reform/rehabilitation (a chance to fix the offender) and cost benefit (how much will this benefit society vs. cost society). In this perspective punishment is not even considered.

 

[Aquitaine]

The utilitarian perspective looks at this less so. Utilitarians look to prisons for specific deterrence (the person cannot hurt anyone while locked up) general deterrence (others will not want to be locked up and therefore will not commit similar acts), reform/rehabilitation (a chance to fix the offender) and cost benefit (how much will this benefit society vs. cost society). In this perspective punishment is not even considered.

True, but you've got to factor in the prisoner's perspective on whether he, or she finds the incarceration and subsequent lack of liberties a form of punishment. Basically, if life on the inside is considered even marginally worse than on the outside, then to the prisoner it would be considered a punishment of some degree, right?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What about a guy like Ted Bundy?

What about him?

 

[Curious George]

True, but you've got to factor in the prisoner's perspective on whether he, or she finds the incarceration and subsequent lack of liberties a form of punishment. Basically, if life on the inside is considered even marginally worse than on the outside, then to the prisoner it would be considered a punishment of some degree, right?

Absolutely.

I guess my point was that a retributivist might very well suggest that while deterrence is great it is besides the point and reform is a waste that the punishment should be the primary, if not sole, intent. So, when talking about reform, (or even respecting civil liberties), a retributivist would say such detracts from the punishment aspect.

 

[Willamena]

while speaking with friends we began talking about prison reform. Several comments were made by my friends.

The first was questioning why more of his tax dollars should go to help people who have screwed up. He was not saying he should pay less taxes but felt that enough is already spent on prisons and were any extra security measures put in place the funding would need to come from the existing funds.

None of his tax dollars should go to help people who screwed up; rather, they should go to helping an already disabled reform system get back on its feet.

Security in prisons is not reform.

Another friend believed that child rapists especially should be subject to a regular raping by fellow inmates.

Your thoughts?

Raping is not reform.

 

[Aquitaine]

Absolutely.

I guess my point was that a retributivist might very well suggest that while deterrence is great it is besides the point and reform is a waste that the punishment should be the primary, if not sole, intent. So, when talking about reform, (or even respecting civil liberties), a retributivist would say such detracts from the punishment aspect.

Indeed it probably would, but rehabilitation for minor criminals seems to work better than outright punishment.

Since the serious violent offenders shouldn't be released, rehabilitation doesn't seem necessary for them though.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

What about a guy like Ted Bundy?

I concur with Mystic, what about him? If I remember correctly, he got death.

 

[Curious George]

Indeed it probably would, but rehabilitation for minor criminals seems to work better than outright punishment.

Since the serious violent offenders shouldn't be released, rehabilitation doesn't seem necessary for them though.

What about a seventeen year old, involved in gangs, in prison for murder. I would say that qualifies as a serious violent offender, but I do not hold that he shouldn't be released or that he should not qualify as reform.