Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD
You have that backwards. Rehabilitation, especially of young offenders, reduces recidivism rates while harsher punishment causes an increase.
|
Percy's point is that in a justice system, fairness, objectivity, and consistency must be seen. In most countries, that is not the case.
VERY few people murder twice. But women, at least in the US, have a defense not available to men... the "burning bed" defense. A man who tried to claim he was driven to murder his wife by a genuine belief in a threat to his welfare (NOT an actual act, mind you) would be laughed out of court. Yet women can get away with the "I thought he was going to hurt me, so I hurt him back, first!" excuse.
The killing of an infant in a fit of postpartum confusion is similar, but more defensible since no man will ever actually be in a true postpartum state.
People who espouse rehabilitation, rehabilitation, rehabilitation as the only purpose of a penal system do a grave disservice to the victims, and are sadly off-base for crimes that have virtually a zero repeat rate, such as murder. A number of the instances Percy discusses are not instances where rehabilitation is a factor to consider. You don't need to rehabilitate someone who will never repeat that crime. But... you may be able to stop others from committing the same crime.
The purpose of a penal system is first deterrence, then, if a crime occurs, rehabilitation if possible. Therefore, if a harsher punishment of a specific crime reduces its occurrence, it
may be warranted. Common sense should prevail (unfortunately, we all know how uncommon common sense actually is).