"In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation." Your answer must be black or white, it can't be "grey". :grin:
If a 'criminal' has remorse, then there is no need for rehabilitation. Since most crimes are committed with the person fully knowing what they did is wrong and choosing to take the risk, its a bit hard to justify rehab with these individuals.
Punishment is the deterrent to committing crime in the first place. Of course it is more important. Punishment, not rehabilitation, is why there is a criminal justice system to start with. At least in this universe.
I think it deters quite a lot, but not enough. Some people are going to commit crimes anyway. If the levels of punishment for various crimes were severe enough, those crimes would be committed much less often. Not to derail the thread on one thing in particular, but drunk driving is one of my pet peeves. Over a 5-10 year period, the penalty should be gradually increased until people lose their driving privileges, permanently in some cases.
Historically, this isn't true. I think it's a mistaken belief that the severity of punishment has any real influence on the amount of crime we face as a society. They do.
You know what I mean. Eventually, a first offense should cost a person 6 months in driving privileges. A second, one year. A third, permanent ban. Three strikes and you're out with harsh first and second strikes. If that happened, DWIs/DUIs would go way down.
People will only respond to change in standard of living. If you're standard of living is already at the bottom, you will probably not be deterred by any attempts to worsen your standard. IMO money is the only way. If the fine is fair and adequate, you will adjust. Speeding fines quadrupled in price, speed cameras quadrupled in number and job security was extremely shaky in Dubai over the last few years - guess what happened? DRAMATIC reduction in speeding. It just happened. Myself, I used to get a ticket every other month, and I only got 2 last year.
You can't do without imprisonment, especially in cases where it is very likely that the perpetrator would commit (similar) crimes again. E.g., serial killer, serial rapist, etc.
Red(Redemption): Rehabilitated? Well, now let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means. 1967 Parole Hearings Man: Well, it means that you're ready to rejoin society... Red: I know what *you* think it means, sonny. To me it's just a made up word. A politician's word, so young fellas like yourself can wear a suit and a tie, and have a job. What do you really want to know? Am I sorry for what I did? 1967 Parole Hearings Man: Well, are you? Red: There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here, or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then: a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone and this old man is all that's left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bull***** word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a *****. OMG the OP is actually Morgan Freeman
Actually, historically it is true that more severe punishments served a deterrent against crimes, particularly corporal punishments. It's difficult to get a reading of statistics today because countries still utilizing corporal punishments dont provide reliable statistics concerning the efficacy of their use. Corporal punishment was outlawed in England in 1948, but prior to that point flogging had been used for many years sparingly and was shown to reduce certain crimes effectively.
