keeponrockin wrote:I stand by my assertion... With no facts to back it up.
Gotchya.
You could google search...
One example..
http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/sto ... 76J_bBSTqA
keeponrockin wrote:I stand by my assertion... With no facts to back it up.
Gotchya.
Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote: We have been proliferated with countless stories of criminals- supposedly rehabilitated- only to clean up their mess and offer our condolences after they have gone and re-offended.
redrock wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote: We have been proliferated with countless stories of criminals- supposedly rehabilitated- only to clean up their mess and offer our condolences after they have gone and re-offended.
I would say that a lot of 'supposedly rehabilitated' criminals are not rehabilitated at all. What is called a 'rehabilitated criminal' is just one that let his sentence run it's course and has been released. Paying your dues to society by serving time for your crime is certainly not rehabilitation - just punishment. Not much in place in prisons for anything else. The type of punitive system in place is not conducive to rehabilitation. How can these criminals then re-integrate into society once their sentence over? I don't think there is much in prison to enable this. Re-offending rates prove this.
redrock wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
It's easy to suggest that rehabilitation works when you ignore the cases that haven't- resulting in innocent people getting hurt or losing their lives. Ask victims of paroled or released criminals how they view rehab. My point of view is that the 'collateral damage' resulting from of failed rehab efforts demands that people who commit violent crimes have forfeited their right to a normal life.
Rehabilitation is not worth the risk. For every success... their are countless failures that have had the effect of creating more harm and perpetuating violence.
In this case, we are talking about medical rehabilitation, not criminal. There is a difference. I also did say in my post that not all can be rehabilitated (though I was speaking of the mentally ill).
If we speak of criminal rehabilitation, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If we look at the Norwegian way of treating their criminals (not just 'punitive' incarceration) - working at their rehabilitation whilst in prison - compared to the US, it would seem there is something in it as the re-offending rate their is less than 1/2 of that of the US.
But this is probably a different discussion as the treatment/rehab we are speaking of for the purpose of this thread is medical - the control of a mental illness which, untreated, caused a person to commit a crime. Being ill, he was not responsible for his actions. With his schizophrenia under control, he acknowledges (and understands) his actions were wrong, etc. Again, no one is suggesting Li's release back into society for him to fend for himself.
redrock wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote: We have been proliferated with countless stories of criminals- supposedly rehabilitated- only to clean up their mess and offer our condolences after they have gone and re-offended.
I would say that a lot of 'supposedly rehabilitated' criminals are not rehabilitated at all. What is called a 'rehabilitated criminal' is just one that let his sentence run it's course and has been released. Paying your dues to society by serving time for your crime is certainly not rehabilitation - just punishment. Not much in place in prisons for anything else. The type of punitive system in place is not conducive to rehabilitation. How can these criminals then re-integrate into society once their sentence over? I don't think there is much in prison to enable this. Re-offending rates prove this.
Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:redrock wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
It's easy to suggest that rehabilitation works when you ignore the cases that haven't- resulting in innocent people getting hurt or losing their lives. Ask victims of paroled or released criminals how they view rehab. My point of view is that the 'collateral damage' resulting from of failed rehab efforts demands that people who commit violent crimes have forfeited their right to a normal life.
Rehabilitation is not worth the risk. For every success... their are countless failures that have had the effect of creating more harm and perpetuating violence.
In this case, we are talking about medical rehabilitation, not criminal. There is a difference. I also did say in my post that not all can be rehabilitated (though I was speaking of the mentally ill).
If we speak of criminal rehabilitation, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If we look at the Norwegian way of treating their criminals (not just 'punitive' incarceration) - working at their rehabilitation whilst in prison - compared to the US, it would seem there is something in it as the re-offending rate their is less than 1/2 of that of the US.
But this is probably a different discussion as the treatment/rehab we are speaking of for the purpose of this thread is medical - the control of a mental illness which, untreated, caused a person to commit a crime. Being ill, he was not responsible for his actions. With his schizophrenia under control, he acknowledges (and understands) his actions were wrong, etc. Again, no one is suggesting Li's release back into society for him to fend for himself.
But in this particular case (and most cases for that matter), the two are intertwined. The freak's corner is using his 'illness' to excuse his 'crime' (for lack of better word). With that said, every violent criminal has some form of an excuse that has made them 'the way they are' (background, greed, alcohol, drugs, jealousy, etc.). At some point, though... an excuse and an apology are not enough to warrant an effort on society's part to rehab and give a second chance to.
Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:redrock wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
It's easy to suggest that rehabilitation works when you ignore the cases that haven't- resulting in innocent people getting hurt or losing their lives. Ask victims of paroled or released criminals how they view rehab. My point of view is that the 'collateral damage' resulting from of failed rehab efforts demands that people who commit violent crimes have forfeited their right to a normal life.
Rehabilitation is not worth the risk. For every success... their are countless failures that have had the effect of creating more harm and perpetuating violence.
In this case, we are talking about medical rehabilitation, not criminal. There is a difference. I also did say in my post that not all can be rehabilitated (though I was speaking of the mentally ill).
If we speak of criminal rehabilitation, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If we look at the Norwegian way of treating their criminals (not just 'punitive' incarceration) - working at their rehabilitation whilst in prison - compared to the US, it would seem there is something in it as the re-offending rate their is less than 1/2 of that of the US.
But this is probably a different discussion as the treatment/rehab we are speaking of for the purpose of this thread is medical - the control of a mental illness which, untreated, caused a person to commit a crime. Being ill, he was not responsible for his actions. With his schizophrenia under control, he acknowledges (and understands) his actions were wrong, etc. Again, no one is suggesting Li's release back into society for him to fend for himself.
But in this particular case (and most cases for that matter), the two are intertwined. The freak's corner is using his 'illness' to excuse his 'crime' (for lack of better word). With that said, every violent criminal has some form of an excuse that has made them 'the way they are' (background, greed, alcohol, drugs, jealousy, etc.). At some point, though... an excuse and an apology are not enough to warrant an effort on society's part to rehab and give a second chance to.
fife wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:redrock wrote:In this case, we are talking about medical rehabilitation, not criminal. There is a difference. I also did say in my post that not all can be rehabilitated (though I was speaking of the mentally ill).
If we speak of criminal rehabilitation, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If we look at the Norwegian way of treating their criminals (not just 'punitive' incarceration) - working at their rehabilitation whilst in prison - compared to the US, it would seem there is something in it as the re-offending rate their is less than 1/2 of that of the US.
But this is probably a different discussion as the treatment/rehab we are speaking of for the purpose of this thread is medical - the control of a mental illness which, untreated, caused a person to commit a crime. Being ill, he was not responsible for his actions. With his schizophrenia under control, he acknowledges (and understands) his actions were wrong, etc. Again, no one is suggesting Li's release back into society for him to fend for himself.
But in this particular case (and most cases for that matter), the two are intertwined. The freak's corner is using his 'illness' to excuse his 'crime' (for lack of better word). With that said, every violent criminal has some form of an excuse that has made them 'the way they are' (background, greed, alcohol, drugs, jealousy, etc.). At some point, though... an excuse and an apology are not enough to warrant an effort on society's part to rehab and give a second chance to.
to begin i would suggest not putting Illness in "".
Yes every criminal does have an excuses of what made them the way they are but i would suggest that mental health is not the same as greed, alcohol, drugs etc due to the fact that mental illness is places on a person and not a choice. A person doesn't wake up one day and decide that they are going to be schizophrenic.
please read this
http://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/facts- ... 76NgMipDcs
Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
But in this particular case (and most cases for that matter), the two are intertwined. The freak's corner is using his 'illness' to excuse his 'crime' (for lack of better word). With that said, every violent criminal has some form of an excuse that has made them 'the way they are' (background, greed, alcohol, drugs, jealousy, etc.). At some point, though... an excuse and an apology are not enough to warrant an effort on society's part to rehab and give a second chance to.
Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
I agree with this, however one could certainly allude to numerous examples of parolees who have done and said the right things, been given a clean bill of health, and upon admittance to mainstream society have proven to have been 'not as rehabilitated as advertised'.
But this post opens the can of worms. If we truly believe in rehabilitation, then I would concur with you when you suggest authentic rehabilitation efforts are not at work. If we believe in punishment, then stiffer sentences need to be in order. We sit in the middle. And, because so, we fail at both.
cincybearcat wrote:catefrances wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:Rehabilitation is not worth the risk. For every success... their are countless failures that have had the effect of creating more harm and perpetuating violence.
this is why rehabilitation is 'worth the risk'.
Just because you have 1 success makes it a risk worth taking for all? Really? That's the standard you want?
Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:catefrances wrote:Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:Rehabilitation is not worth the risk. For every success... their are countless failures that have had the effect of creating more harm and perpetuating violence.
this is why rehabilitation is 'worth the risk'.
But you missed my point entirely: you are one of the people not considering the impact of failed rehabs.
I am saying that there is a significant cost people need to deliberate before we start feeling good about the 'success stories'. It's my opinion that rehab efforts bear a significant risk to society. Every person who has been impacted by a dangerous criminal who was once incarcerated and posing no harm to anyone until their release... well... it's pretty safe to say that they would side with me.
To the person who asked for statistics to back my claim up... I offer none, nor am I inclined to for this type of discussion on a Pearl Jam forum thread. I stand by my assertion though. We have been proliferated with countless stories of criminals- supposedly rehabilitated- only to clean up their mess and offer our condolences after they have gone and re-offended. With that said, if you wish to challenge this with some statistics of your own, I might stand corrected. I should say though... that any statistic that does not display an overwhelming percentage for 'minimal' re-offences adds to what I say.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
ICON LEGEND:
Announcement |
Sticky |
Unread posts |
No unread posts |
Locked |
Moved |
Popular