I said nothing about executing criminals.
Snood,
What is wrong with keeping violent criminals, convicted of their crime, locked up in jail where they can't hurt anybody else?
Some of us prefer a more Christian approach, jpinmilwaukee.
The MCC approach has worked quite well in Canada. It is based, in part, on the success of the traditional restorative justice approach of aboriginal tribal councils.
http://www.saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/Comm_Services/restor-justice.shtml
From your own link, ehbeth:
Quote:Are there any offences that cannot be diverted to alternative measures?
Yes. Offences that may not be diverted are:
incidents involving the use or threatened use of a weapon;
violence against the person cases (adult or child), where the Crown elects to proceed by way of indictment;
child sexual abuse cases;
sexual assault cases, where the Crown elects to proceed by way of indictment;
perjury;
driving while disqualified;
Criminal Code driving offences where alcohol was a contributing factor;
federal offences other than Criminal Code (the availability of diversion respecting these offences is determined by the federal Department of Justice); and
family violence cases.
Sounds like it may work well in lesser crimes but not in violent crimes. Again, what is wrong with locking up people who are convicted of violent crimes?
Also, I can't find anything about recitivism rates. What are they? How successful is the program? It all sounds great but if it doesn't work...
I was thinking more along the lines of recidivism rates among the participants of the "more christian" method... but that is good info as well. Thanks Timber.
There's lots of interesting research out there, jpin.
I'd recommend looking at some of the numbers gathered by the John Howard Society. Comparing numbers from different countries might also help. The U.S. approach to rehab seems fairly tepid, barely a step above warehousing.
ehBeth,
It would probably be best if you spoke solely for yourself when you assert what kind of rehabilitation approach "some of us" would prefer. Or, if you find you must speak for "some of us", then maybe just call it "more humane", or something.
I say this because "more Christian" is just the kind of term some folks would love to pounce on, and I really don't want this to become another referendum on who is and ain't Christian. Believe it or not, I've seen it happen with threads that didn't start out to be anything like that.
Thanks.
Yes, jpinMilwaukee, I know you didn't mention executing anyone. But your statement that simply locking away forever all those convicted of violent crime was a little simplistic, a little unrealistic, and a whole lot defeating of the purpose of the whole discussion.
Rehabilitation can't be just for those who need it the least. Yes it would be intellectually easier to just say "Robbers and white collar crimes, go to the left, batterers and manslaughterers go to the right", and never even consider those convicted of certain crimes as potentially useful to society.
But my idea of redemption of life means just that - redeeming a life that had sunk to real depth.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:I disagree. With every rehabilitated person you let out of jail there is a chance of a repeat crime. We could gaurantee 100% no repeat crime by keeping those people in jail.
Well, as said, we have different legal system: prison isn't here primary to prevend crime but the hardest penalty someone could get for acting against the law. (Although, general prevention of this certainly is one point.)
Imprisonment has a very different status here.
I have not read the thread yet, so forgive me if I am boringly restating what has been said by many.
I believe that the "lock 'em up/kill 'em" mentality is based largely on ignorance, and possibly on the putative psychological defence mechanism called "reaction formation"...(ie that we react with primitive fury and fear to the actions of others which may express desires which we find it hard to accept in ourselves.
Also, vengeance seems to be a fairly strong urge in humans......
And fear of crime seems very pervasive, more so, perhaps, in the US with its very hight murder rate?
Anyhoo, my belief tends to be that to know all and understand all is to forgive damn nearly all.........at least in the sense of not needing to demonise people and wish to banish them some sort of unthought about netherworld.
Interestingly, there is a program here where people get put into a mock jury (it educates them about the criminal "justice" system).
The jury is given an account of a (real) nasty offence, and its effect on the victim, and polled re the sentence they would give.
Usually very severe at this stage.
Then, they hear the defence's account of the offence, and polled again.
Usually sentence now less severe.
Then they are given lots and lots of information about the offender............(again all real)
Polled again.......much less severe and more attention to possible rehab.
I have worked with offenders and victims, and dealt with trauma inflicted on people, or by the person I am working with, so awful that I would only share it with fellow coal face workers......and I have to say that, while some people have chilled me to the core, I have never seen them as anything but "There but for the grace of god..... etc."
Also, as a therapist with very up to date information about the effects of childhood trauma etc on people, I have a lot of understanding of how people get to be what they are, neurologically etc speaking.
That being said, I DO think some people have to be locked away because they pose such a risk to others......but only ever very humanely (if locking away can ever be that - anyone who says imprisonment is not a hugely awful thing is ignorant or an idiot or blocking something..)
I agree with Snood's first post that many christian people seem most un christian in their ability to walk in another's shoes, and consider the possibility of redemption.
As for asking for the death penalty........
snood wrote:ehBeth,
It would probably be best if you spoke solely for yourself when you assert what kind of rehabilitation approach "some of us" would prefer. Or, if you find you must speak for "some of us", then maybe just call it "more humane", or something.
I say this because "more Christian" is just the kind of term some folks would love to pounce on, and I really don't want this to become another referendum on who is and ain't Christian. Believe it or not, I've seen it happen with threads that didn't start out to be anything like that.
Thanks.
snood - I think I will continue to decide what words I use when posting. <within the limits of the TOS of course>. Much as you choose what words you will use. You can object to my usage, as I can object to yours.
ehBeth wrote:snood wrote:ehBeth,
It would probably be best if you spoke solely for yourself when you assert what kind of rehabilitation approach "some of us" would prefer. Or, if you find you must speak for "some of us", then maybe just call it "more humane", or something.
I say this because "more Christian" is just the kind of term some folks would love to pounce on, and I really don't want this to become another referendum on who is and ain't Christian. Believe it or not, I've seen it happen with threads that didn't start out to be anything like that.
Thanks.
snood - I think I will continue to decide what words I use when posting. <within the limits of the TOS of course>. Much as you choose what words you will use. You can object to my usage, as I can object to yours.
Done - but kindly field the idiots who seize any instance of the use of the word "Christian" to launch into a rant - I'd consider it a favor.
snood wrote:Rehabilitation can't be just for those who need it the least. Yes it would be intellectually easier to just say "Robbers and white collar crimes, go to the left, batterers and manslaughterers go to the right", and never even consider those convicted of certain crimes as potentially useful to society.
But my idea of redemption of life means just that - redeeming a life that had sunk to real depth.
ehbeth, mentioned that if she reforms "even one person" it would be worth it. How many repeat offenders do
you find acceptable in this rehabilitation plan (whatever it is)?
snood wrote:Yes, jpinMilwaukee, I know you didn't mention executing anyone. But your statement that simply locking away forever all those convicted of violent crime was a little simplistic, a little unrealistic, and a whole lot defeating of the purpose of the whole discussion.
snood, you've been advocating clemency for Tookie Williams. supposing that happens, will you then advocate his release on parole?
yitwail wrote:snood wrote:Yes, jpinMilwaukee, I know you didn't mention executing anyone. But your statement that simply locking away forever all those convicted of violent crime was a little simplistic, a little unrealistic, and a whole lot defeating of the purpose of the whole discussion.
snood, you've been advocating clemency for Tookie Williams. supposing that happens, will you then advocate his release on parole?
No - I think he should stay in prison for the rest of his life. I just think he's done some valuable work there, which would be lost if we kill him.
Why are you alright with keeping Tookie locked up but not other violent criminals?
jpinMilwaukee wrote:Why are you alright with keeping Tookie locked up but not other violent criminals?
what the hell are you talking about? When did I say not to keep other violent criminals locked up?
snood wrote:Rehabilitation can't be just for those who need it the least. Yes it would be intellectually easier to just say "Robbers and white collar crimes, go to the left, batterers and manslaughterers go to the right", and never even consider those convicted of certain crimes as potentially useful to society.
But my idea of redemption of life means just that - redeeming a life that had sunk to real depth.
I would think that Tookie and others like him would fit in the category of "a life that has sunk to real depth." So are we trying to find redemption for them or keeping them locked up?
