How should criminals be treated?

[Humus]

Spinning off a new thread from the end of the RIAA thread ... how do you think criminals should be treated? Rehabilitation through wellfare officers/schools/work support? Or is prosecution more important?

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I picked:
"Prosecution is always primary, help can be useful sometimes but is always secondary."

Get the hard part over and done with first.

I read that pedophilia is a genetic disorder and prosecuting one isn't going to do any good.
I really can't see any of those options on your poll to be a "be all end all" option.

Every case and person should be treated differently based upon the situation.

For example:
You can't just prosecute a pedophile and then let them out in public after any amount of time in prison because they most likely will re-offend.

 

[epicstruggle]

I picked:
"Prosecution is always primary, help can be useful sometimes but is always secondary."

Get the hard part over and done with first.

I read that pedophilia is a genetic disorder and prosecuting one isn't going to do any good.
I really can't see any of those options on your poll to be a "be all end all" option.

Every case and person should be treated differently based upon the situation.

For example:
You can't just prosecute a pedophile and then let them out in public after any amount of time in prison because they most likely will re-offend.

Wow, I cant believe im saying this, but i completly agree with kiler. Hell must have frozen over.

Look certain crimes need to be treated differently. If a kid steals a bike, help/rehibilatation should be primary, over jail time. However the CEOs who steal/embezzle millions should be force to pay restatution and serve time. Each situation should be treated differently.

I have a real problem with treating kids as adults in serious crimes. But the alternative is even worse, letting kids go when they turn 18/21. Some combination of punishment would be better.

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I picked the second option.

For "punishment" to be effective, it must be consistently applied. Offenders have to know that if they get caught, they will face negative consequences.

Some people say that punishment is an ineffective deterrent. I say that the only times it's typically ineffective, is if the offender has in the back of his mind that even if he's caught, he won't actually face the punishment.

That being said, the level of punishment administered should fit the crime. (This includes the nature of the crime itself, and the habitual nature of the offender.)

And "help" should be suggested / administered on a case by base basis...but only in addition to the punishment...not a replacement for it.

 

[Silent_One]

I too picked the second option.

I do have a problem with how the poll is categorized though. After all burglary and theft can be considered serious crimes. As K.I.L.E.R. says "Every case and person should be treated differently based upon the situation." There are various laws to deal with these issues such as accelerated rehab., probation, ect...
Perhaps humus can elaborate on why he feels the proper responce is "rehabilitation through wellfare officers/schools/work support" and how it differes from what currently is on the books (which should reflect circumstances based upon the situation)

 

[Postscript3]

Procescution only BAAAABYYYYYY! (sorry, got Dick Vitale syndrome today talking college hoops at work).

Help, what is help? If help = torture then I would be in favor of help. The "lets sit down and talk about the issues, take out the box of kleenex and spary some lysol" therapy is a joke. Prosecute, then torture the bastard into submission. Kind of like training a dog. It does not do as you like, submit it (choke collar, pull taught and down rapidly, put knee on back of neck dog = jello. It's not cruel, it's training.). With a human, well...choke collar won't work. You gotta go pshyc. Break their will, make them fear breaking the law. Let's stop pussy footing around the politically correct "prisoners have rights" B.S. and treat them as they treated their victims/society.

I could elaborate further but I have work to do and more hoops talk to engage in. If you are wondering if I actually believe what I wrote, yeah, I do. I'm sick of criminals being prosecuted, going to re-hab/therapy sessions then coming out and re-engaging in criminal activity. If you argue it's genetics then execute them. What purpose does a genetically twisted freak offer society? Exactly, none other than a medical guinea pig. Back to work... A JDFing we will go, a JDFing we will go...Hi Ho the merry-o a JDFing we will go...

 

[Humus]

For "punishment" to be effective, it must be consistently applied. Offenders have to know that if they get caught, they will face negative consequences.

Some people say that punishment is an ineffective deterrent. I say that the only times it's typically ineffective, is if the offender has in the back of his mind that even if he's caught, he won't actually face the punishment.

The problem though is that most criminals don't even weight in punishment in their equation. They don't consider that they might get caught. They think of their goals with the crime, not on what happends if they fail.

And "help" should be suggested / administered on a case by base basis...but only in addition to the punishment...not a replacement for it.

Agreed. The prosecution part should always be there, but that doesn't mean that the prosecution need to be the most important part. I think help is more important to ensure that once they have expiate their crimes they don't fall back into it again. If someone is found to be unlikely to fall back into crime then a lower prosecution can be in place.

 

[Humus]

I too picked the second option.

I do have a problem with how the poll is categorized though. After all burglary and theft can be considered serious crimes. As K.I.L.E.R. says "Every case and person should be treated differently based upon the situation." There are various laws to deal with these issues such as accelerated rehab., probation, ect...
Perhaps humus can elaborate on why he feels the proper responce is "rehabilitation through wellfare officers/schools/work support" and how it differes from what currently is on the books (which should reflect circumstances based upon the situation)

Proper response is of course whatever your opionion is.
I'm not saying rehabilitation and that stuff neccesarily differs in any way to how things are currently handled. I personally voted the 4th option, but I'm swaying a little back and forth between 3 and 4.

 

[Moffell]

I picked the second option.

For "punishment" to be effective, it must be consistently applied. Offenders have to know that if they get caught, they will face negative consequences.

Some people say that punishment is an ineffective deterrent. I say that the only times it's typically ineffective, is if the offender has in the back of his mind that even if he's caught, he won't actually face the punishment.

There are a lot of deterrants to take into account. Punishment is most certainly one but the most important one (IMO anyway) is the risk of getting caught. Increase that and crime will always drop like a rock, at least for any "un-passionate" crimes.