Rehabilitation vs Punishment, which one is more important?

[Zor]

This is something I was wondering about involving your personal Beliefs. Which one do you feel should be the greater Priority of the Criminal Justice System, Punishment of Criminals or Rehabilitation in hopes of their re-integration and why do you feel as such?

Personally, I lean towards Rehabilitation. In the Long-term, punishment does no benefit to society beyond acting as a deterrent and hard, brutal punishments do not lead to a lower crime rate as shown by history.

So what do you have to say?

Zor

[Spacebeard]

I'd be surprised if there were anyone reasonable who actually believes that punishment would still be more important if it were actually possible to reliably rehabilitate criminals. I'm under the impression that most people who favor stronger punishments and oppose rehabilitation efforts do so because they believe that those rehabilitation efforts won't work and will simply waste taxpayer money and release hardened criminals onto the streets sooner. If it were possible to magically brainwash criminals and transform them into productive, law-abiding citizens without any ill side-effects, then that would be the ethical thing to do. However, that kind of procedure is the stuff of Outer Limits episodes, not of reality.

[Batman]

The emphasis should be on eliminating (or this being the Real World reduce) the threat criminals represent to society. Punishment doesn't work other than as a deterrent and it has so far abysmally failed to do so given criminals don't seem to think they'll be caught. Rehabilitation is a laudable idea and I wholeheartedly approve of it but the current criminal justice systems (I'm by no means limiting this to the US) don't seem to be doing a very good job of that.
Of course putting tons of people in jail for victimless crimes doesn't exactly help.

[Azrael]

Neutral, because I don't think this is a black and white issue; Being a kleptomaniac is 'cureable' with time and the right mental therapy.

But what about a crime for which there really is no therapy, like pedophilia? 'Rehabilitating' a sexual prefrence to a degree where I would feel comfortable unleashing this person back out into society isn't something we can currently do in my opinion, so here, what option is there other than to lock then away and throw away the key?

[Alyeska]

Unless you plan on locking away 90% of all criminals for the rest of their lives, rehabilitation must be the most important part of the prison program. These people are going to be released into the public again. You want to reduce the chance of them comitting crimes again, not increase them.

[Pick]

Without rehabilitation, there isn't any real point to prison as far as I can see, unless you just shoot them before they get out or keep them in permanently. Otherwise, it's just opening up for the same actions to repeat. Punishment as a deterrent doesn't work; it only makes people warier about how they commit their crimes, as not to be caught.

Ideally, people who commit a crime would want to go to a prison, so they can get better. In my goddamn dream world.

[mr friendly guy]

Neutral.

The way with criminals should aim to a) reduce their threat to society and b) to make them pay back what they have taken. I don't have a problem with rehabilitation or punishment if it can be shown one or the other achieves these 2 goals.

Usually I frown on current rehab methods because I don't see the results happening from them. At least with punishments we can sometimes achieve goal b). But if someone can do a death of personality type thing (from Babylon 5) vs capital punishment, you may be able to argue that death of personality achieves both goals, while capital punishment only achieves a) (unless you are the PRC and use organs from dead criminals).

[Winston Blake]

Punishment as a deterrent doesn't work; it only makes people warier about how they commit their crimes, as not to be caught.

Assuming this is true, making people warier about how they commit crimes means that the greater consequences has made it more difficult to commit those crimes. Limiting the number of people willing to commit a crime because of the consequences is the definition of deterrence.

I voted Neutral because i don't know enough about the history and statistics of any penal system to figure out the right side.

[Stofsk]

If detterent were effective, then you could ask any person (criminal or not) what the maximum penalty is for any particular crime. You may or may not be surprised to know that most criminals don't know or guessed wrong and were surprised to find out.

And that education was part of the rehabilitative classes.

[K. A. Pital]

Neutral. Both are of equal importance.

[Noble Ire]

I always thought the concept of any pure punishment short of death without an attempt at rehabilitation was a rather pointless idea. To me, at least, the point of the prison/justice system is to ensure that society and its people are not harmed by those who would disrupt it. Rehabilitation, if it works, facilitates this goal, as does execution, whether you consider it valid or not. Punishing a person for the sake of punishing them seems like a wasteful and self-indulgent enterprise (although it does raise the issue of what is to be done with those who cannot be rehabilitated; life in prison is the best option, I suppose).

[K. A. Pital]

Those who are harmful to others should be isolated so that they cannot do more harm; that's the true and only purpose of prisons, it's not "punishment" any more than a surgical operation on a human body. Rehabilitating people whose offenses are minor is absolutely necessary work, however the law system still requires much work regarding the measuring of offenses.

[Knife]

I should have pushed the 'neutral' option but instead picked ' punishment'. Society has the duty to protect itself, whether it's rehabilitation or punishment, what ever one is the most productive for society in that particular case should be the focus.

For example, drug abuse that lead to petty thieft would be a good opertunity for rehab, forced if need be but that definately lessens the effect. But a habitual rapist that has reoffened twice or three times, needs to be locked up for the rest of his life.

Rehabing someone who could indeed be a benifit to society is a good idea, punishing those who would be nothing but a detrement to society is a good idea as well, up to and including the ultimate punishment-death in certain circumstances.