Yes, and those who are deserve a second chance! |
 |
59.7% (142) |
Yes, but they still belong in jail. |
|
22.7% (54) |
No, people who murder cannot be changed. |
|
17.2% (41) |
Poll: Can murderers be "rehabilitated"? Pages 1 2 3 NEXT | |
You seem to operate on black&white extremes in this, simple fact is nothing in life is that simple. The entire rehabilitation hinges on the reason, why have these people murdered someone? | |
Depends? We have murder 1 and 2. Murder 1 was a man who came home on his wife cheating on him. He throws a punch that accidently hits the guys solar plexus and he drops like a rock hitting his head on the radiator. Hes dead. This is murder technically since it was with intent to harm. Murder 2 was cold blooded with intent to hurt the victim for no other reason that sadistic pleasure. Murder 1 can be reabilitated no issue. Murder 2 probably cant. | |
I've met a Krogan that recites poetry. After seeing that, I think anythings possible. | |
I'm fairly sure that a sizeable proportion of murderers can be rehabilitated, if given proper treatment & supervision. Then again, there is probably a minority that cannot be effectively rehabilitated. I'm not an expert on this, so I'll leave it to the psychiatrists. | |
It won't help all of them, but it beats wasting millions on Capital Punishment. | |
Last time I checked, the point of prison was for rehabilitation. | |
In theory, yes it is possible. Any rehabilitation hinges upon the state of mind of the criminal and their reasons for committing the crime(s) in question. Murderers present more of a challenge in that respect, and more of them are lost causes, but it certainly remains a feasible option. A better question might be whether or not the effort is worth it, at least for any among that group that doesn't deliberately begin the process themselves.
Incorrect The point of prison is to help protect the populace from criminals. It mainly does so first by physical separation, and afterwards by making sure its inmates have little reason to want to risk returning to prison. Rehabilitation is a part of that goal, but has a low actual success rate in the category where we need it most, the worst criminals tend to only respect force. | |
This is a major difference between European and American systems. As for my opinion, a spotty criminal record definitely devalues them in an economic sense but the ones that can be salvaged ought to while the Breiviks should be kept locked away. | |
I agree completely. OP seems to believe that only the most vilest of monsters are murderers and that "lesser" criminals are not enough of a monster to commit "greater crime". Which is totally not like that. Furthermore:
This doesn't follow. If you can rehabilitate them, then would you trust them back in society. That's a contradiction right there - if you have doubts in the rehabilitation, then you actually cannot guarantee it. If you can guarantee it's successfully, then you'll just be keep the poor SOB locked up (assuming the sentence is complete and all that). Version 1 makes no sense, because you cannot rehabilitate them, version 2 makes no sense because why would you rehabilitate them in the first place if it serves no purpose. I can't really add my thoughts here on the blind without any support but I'd hazard a guess, that some people can be rehabilitated. So I suppose we should try. | |
Some can, some can't. Depends on the individual. | |
they can but our legal and prison system makes it very hard if not impossible for them to manage it (in England btw) when will people learn that prison does not provide a solution to criminals, it is not a deterrent (in terms of re-offending) and does not rehabilitate them at all, it is basically a very expensive way of temporarily removing people from society and doesn't even do that well most of the time | |
There's two types of murderers: People who shot someone in self defense and the state fucked them over, and people who just don't give a damn. The former doesn't need to be rehabilitated as they acted simply so they wouldn't be killed themselves, the latter cannot be rehabilitated and it's pointless to try. | |
It's not. It's for punishment and to make money. OT: I generally operate on the assumption that everyone can be rehabilitated to some extent. And even if one particular person can't be, isn't it better to at least try? | |
Still depends on circumstances. Even amongst first degree cases, not all murderers are created equal. | |
well played... not so good sir? | |
In the case of StarCraft 2, murderers become "rehabilitated" by getting suited up in power armor and given either Punisher grenade launchers or Incinerator gauntlets. Captcha: hobby-horse. If I had grenade launchers or flamethrowers, there wouldn't be much left of THAT horse. | |
"Murderer" is really too broad a term to even begin addressing your question. Are we talking a crime of passion? The punk who attempted to rob you, saw things weren't going well, then stabbed you? Systemic murder from drug networks and other organised crime? Or Ted Bundy or Tsutomu Miyazaki? There are numerous reasons why one might kill, and to "rehabilitate" someone, you need to know that reason intimately, | |
What the what what? I'm fairly certain we lose money for each criminal we give free mandatory food and housing to. | |
In the United States, prisons are generally privately owned. | |
Yeah, but I think (at least with American Prison) it's there for discouragement. Especially if half the stories you hear are true. OT: Yes, but if it became general practice, it'd be too easy to manipulate the system. Unless you used Operant conditioning, ala Clockwork Orange, but I'm fairly certain that violates human rights. | |
Oh. So, money for not-the-government people. Okay then. | |
If they are quite talented at the necromantic arts, they can bring the person back to life. No harm done. | |
Yeah, surely you can see how this is a terrible system. | |
Depends on the country the system you are talking about sounds like america whereas Norway's prisons focus on rehabilitation and they have one of the lowest re-offending rates in the world so I think the evidence speaks for itself. | |
If only reality were black and white, where you are a murder if you murder. Reality works on a case by case basis. Since most murders tend to be heat of the moment crimes of passion deals, where you get so mad that you kill without thinking. I'm fairly certain that those people will never do it again once they are out of prison. With them, give them anger management, mandatory counseling, and anti anxiety drugs. Also strongly encourage them to keep it up after release. The ones that are remorseless killers, yeah lock them away forever. | |
Depends on the sort of murderer. Someone who shot a shopkeeper in a robbery is very different from a madman who planned and carried out the ritulaistic slaughter of a dozen women because he believes he can ressurect the elder gods. Both are technically murderers, but one can probably be rehabilitated while the other cannot. Some people are driven to do extreme things because of circumstance, and since no one can ever truly understand what they or anyone else would do under those circumstances you shouldn't pass judgement on them so easily. - Ally? This guy is a criminal. A murderer. - Read the file. Got in a drunken brawl defending his wife and he killed a guy. Could have happened to any one of us, including you and me. - I am not one of these animals. - Oh, that's original! When exactly did they all become animals? - When they stopped giving a damnabout the law, about civilization. | |
I'm Roman Catholic, so I hold the belief that virtually everyone can, in some way, be redeemed. Murder is a harsh crime, but if they are genuinely, truly regretful that they committed such a crime then they should have a second chance to do things right. | |
This is what we call a low content post and may cause you to be punished by the mods. Please refrain from doing this in the future. OT: Murderers are often people who snapped or lost control and killed in a heat of rage or in passion. Some few murderers carry out their murders by a plan and knows what they are doing all along. I believe some could be let out of prisons and go straight back to be a decent human. Some should never see the outside ever again. Some might be changed because they served time for murder, meaning they can't get a job and end up living a life of crime. There's too many things that are possible, but for the most part I think they can be rehabilitated. | |
Why do murders need to be rehabilitated? We do realize that there are more variables than they just killed someone, you have to look at the whole situation. Just because I killed someone with a chainsaw doesn't mean there's anything that needs to be fixed about me. | |
I'm kind of curious to the people who vote yes. What if it was your sister, daughter or wife who got sexually tortured before being murdered? if it were someone close to you, you no doubt would be singing a very different tune and demanding justice. Sure you read about it in the papers, but I bet 99.9% of you would never be able to fill the void of that missing special someone and would vote no. Something to think about. | |
I am glad to see I was in the majority with my vote. Everyone deserves a second chance. Even if it means a life on parole, everyone still deserves a second chance, regardless of the mistake they made. Consider a gang member. If they kill someone it is neither an "Accidental" murder or a murder of "Recklessness". It is a deliberate act of violence carried out upon another. However, there are so many mitigating circumstances around that, the socio-economic issues that drove them towards gang membeship, yeah. If after a few years in prison they are no longer seen to be dangers to society, they should be released. Like anybody else. I think the main issue here is the difference between an American and a British jail. Within the UK, Prison sentences are primarily geared towards rehabilitating someone and reintegrating someone into society. Within America, I am given to understand that prison sentences are punishments for crimes already committed. I am much more in favour of the British model. Another, real life, example (Taken strait from Wiki) James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990[1] - 12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, when aged two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982).[2][3] Bulger disappeared from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, near Liverpool, while accompanying his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two-and-a-half miles away in Walton, two days after his murder. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with Bulger's abduction and murder. The pair were found guilty on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on a lifelong licence in June 2001. In 2010 Venables was returned to prison for violating the terms of his licence of release. Unlike his "Partner in crime" Thompson is currently still out there, complete with a new identity. He has yet to have violated the terms of his parole and everything points to him being a decent (Or at least not indecent to the point of reoffending in any way) member of society. Naturally, due to witness protection, nobody knows how he is doing. But it is a matter of public record that he got his A levels whilst in prison and did rather well. The fact that he is still out there (Still under parole and being watched, naturally) indicates that the rehabilitation he recieved during prison DID work in his case or he would be back inside. No matter what crime you have committed, if you are reformed, if you are no longer a danger to society, You deserve a second chance. You cannot keep someone in prison for life for a crime they have committed if they are no longer a danger to society. That, in of itself, is a travesty of justice. Justice is not about revenge and it never should be.
As I have stated, Justice and revenge should never be mixed. I dated a rape victim. They had been raped roughly twice a month for closing on two years by their partner. For a while I wished harm up their partner. For a while I wanted to hurt them, kill them. But justice and revenge do not make welcome bedfellows. They do not deserve death. They need a prison sentence and rehabilitation to make sure they never reoffend. I would not wish life in prison upon them. But I would wish a life on parole. Oh, and a lifetime membership on whatever the German equivalent of a sex offenders register is. | |
Depends on the case, really. For example: | |
Not here is America. Here the point of prison is to punish them. Although, in places like Norway rehabilitation is clearly the goal. Norwegian prison: | |
| Pages 1 2 3 NEXT | |
In the "punishment Vs rehabilitation" debate about what the purpose of prisons should be, a lot of people think prisons should be places to rehabilitate rather then to punish. However, while I agree in regards to the lesser criminals, I fail to see how the worst criminals can be rehabilitated.
So basically, is it really possible to actually rehabilitate the worst of the worst? Like murderers and such? And if you could then would you actually let them back into the street?
I will be honest. I don't really care if its possible or not. If you are so disregardful of the lifes of those around you that you have started killing them then you don't deserve a second chance and there is no reason for why you should ever be let out of jail again since letting a murderer back into the street simply because he said he was sorry (even if he means it) would be a spit in the face of justice.
Re-educating the lesser criminals is all very well, but thinking that its actually possible to take murderers and the like in the same way you can take alcoholics and drug addicts and somehow just "make them better" sounds laughably naive to me.
Thoughts?
EDIT: I should mention that I am talking about first degree murders. Not accidental murders or murders of recklessnes.