[Mr.Coffee]

One of my issues with the theory of rehabilitation is that it presumes that everyone can be rehabilitated, which I have my doubts. I’m not sure it’s as much about “punishment” as it is about segregating violent and dangerous people from society. For example, I’m not sure child sex offenders can actually be rehabilitated because their sexual preferences are something psychologically hard wired in, and it’s as much as what “normal” people find sexually desirable for themselves as it is something that can just be rehabilitated. Would I prefer a child molesting sex offender moving in next door or in a prison so my kids can go outside and play without me having to worry as much? I know my answer, and honestly? I don’t really care if that desire for certain safety in a neighborhood trumping some child molesting sex offenders’ hopeful chance that rehabilitation works properly for them, might make me look like some kind of bigoted mean or horrible person. Sorry, you broke the law and destroyed peoples lives man. We have lots of people, and we need safe societies.

There are other examples than just the one above, and I recognize the varied level of context and risk factors that go into each unique case and situation, and that certainly some people can be rehabilitated. But I also think it’s certainly fair to take a much more critical eye at how our justice system is performing when you have a criminal with a 50 page rap sheet being wrist slapped in the hopes of rehabilitation only to go on a massive bloody murder spree across central Saskatchewan.

Notwithstanding MBates expert level replies and pragmatic explanations, riddled with legal concepts and excellent theory or thoughts- his last reply on the subject was kind of just (paraphrasing) “hey experts who do this for a career analyzed this and applied their parole expertise and are way more qualified, knowledgeable and experienced to make all such decisions”. And while I do agree with such a stance, I also think it’s important we still be critical of such decisions. Expert level parole board folks and judges and the justice system writ large let a man go last fall who went and murdered several people in central Saskatchewan, did they get that one right? Are these people infallible?

I don’t think there’s a better system, but I do think there could be stricter measures and harsher enforcement via much longer prison terms. If the plan is to rehabilitate, are we sure we are resourcing things properly to do so? And if not, why are we letting people go early then? Can’t we just admit “well we don’t have the resources to properly rehabilitate, so it’s safer to keep these violent people segregated”?

I dunno, this topic just isn’t as black and white as everyone in here is insinuating.