Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (81651)	6/14/2000 3:32:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The purpose of rehabilitation is penitential, to give the sinner an opportunity to pay for his wrongs. Mercy and forgiveness belong to God, but society should allow the criminal to repay as well as he can after he is convicted of a serious crime. If he fails to become rehabilitated (after, say, a first offense) then kill him. It is a shame to execute innocent people. We should spend some money trying to find out how to tell when someone is telling the truth. Drugs, electroshock, torture, there are many possibilities. I've seen polygraph tests used on parties in civil cases with stipulation by both parties as to the conclusiveness of the results. I would much prefer that convicted criminals be used as medical experiments or be vivisected, rather than to waste them. No use to turn 'em lose if they survive, or to care for them if they are crippled.

To: Neocon who wrote (81651)	6/14/2000 8:28:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

There is no affirmative obligation to rehabilitate. In fact, the argument is that execution is a just response to certain crimes, and therefore, an effort at rehabilitation would be an act of mercy. The discussion of rehabilitation did not refer to capital crimes - since the only alternative to capital punishment that I could propose would be permanent imprisonment, rehabilitation would hardly be practical. We were talking about the larger prison population that will eventually be released. In this case, of course, there is also no "affirmative obligation to rehabilitate". It is a purely practical issue: these people will be released, doesn't it make sense to at least attempt to give them the means by which they can function outside and avoid returning to prison?