this is how it is:
We need to decide whether to punish, or to rehabilitate.
Thats point one.
When a person commits a crime (and that designation is arbitrary) the first question should be; was that crime commited with intent, accidental, or
For reactive crimes, crimes of passion we really should be looking towards rehabillitaion, regardless of the outcome of that crime. We have programs
for anger management, alcohol abuse and so on that help individuals that show real remorse and a desire to not commit crime.
Accidental crime, where an individual really couldnt be expected to know that their actions were criminal should also be rehabilative and in some
cases punitive. making individuals pay "penalties" for local transgressions can ensure an easier transition period for those abiding by the laws when
new comers are introduced.
Crimes with intent are different. In this instance, the perpertrator is well aware that they are commiting the crime.
And do so willingly and with aforethought.
In this case, rehabillitaion isnt going to work, you cant teach someone that what they are doing is wrong, when they already know that what they are
doing is wrong. Councilling might work, if the perpatrator can be made to realise the effect of there crimes on the reipients, but this is probably
only relevant to the young criminal with limited social interaction. (I suppose this could be seen as a type of rehabillitation)
Finaly we come to those criminals that commit crimes, on purpose, with a complete understanding of the potential punishments that could be handed out.
Anybody, that commits a crime with full knowledge of the repercussions is not fit to be a part of society, and anyone that commits a crime with full
knowledge of the repercussions is not compos mentis. As a civilised soceity, we do not just kill our mentally ill. We protect them from themselves,
and we protect society from them.
edit on 11-8-2015 by idmonster because: latin is sheeee ite
edit on 11-8-2015 by idmonster because: (no reason