I agree to a point. I personally think some people no matter how well brought up will end up in crime. They just will. I have associates from school who I know have been or are up to no good and they're from comfortable backgrounds. They chose that path. Some people will get into crime simply because they see it as worth taking the risk - you can make big money quickly in crime in say drugs but you can be put a way for a long time if caught. Some people will take that risk. It's also worth mentioning wealthy people commit crime as much as those less fortunate - in tax, bribery and sometimes much worse. A different upbringing and wealth will not eradicate crime imo. Its part of the psyche of man. Not everyone has the same morals.
Yup some people are just irredeemable fella. Just look at someone like breivik, im not sure he will be changing anytime soon irrespective of how much rehab hes having (an extreme example)
Morals are learnt, not a natural thing. Richer people commit crime to, of course. They just don't get caught as much as they can afford not to through lawyers/accountants If you look at the prisons and see the % from what would be considered "underprivileged" backgrounds I bet it is very high. Of course there will be some from wealthy backgrounds who go into crime for various reasons, much like there are 1000s of psychopaths but only a small % go on to be murderers. The general trend will be that the prisons are filled with people from poorer backgrounds.
There’s always an extreme. However extremes don’t justify generalisations. It’s utterly ridiculous to maintain that there’s no such thing as deterrent anymore & that rehabilitation doesn’t work.
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. You can have a good background and been properly taught what is right and wrong but still end up in crime. I do agree the prisons probably are more from less privileged backgrounds but as you've said they're the ones who've been caught! I bet you all major corporations have committed a crime in some form or another but have not been caught or found a way around it. My original point though was I don't feel it is "simple to get rid of crime by giving an option not to be a criminal" which is what the other poster said. That may work for some but definitely not all.
You can never eradicate it all but logically if the alternatives to criminal activity are more attractive and you equip people better for those alternatives you’ll have fewer criminals.
Rehabilitation for nicking ciggies from Tesco is all well and good ... rehabilitation for some **** who has raped and killed a 6 year old can GTF .... there is no rehabilitation for the victims family
As I said, extremes don’t make the generalisation correct, as it isn’t. However, even in that example, you’re not necessarily correct in terms of whether he’s capable of being rehabilitated over the course of the decades of whatever his sentence ends up being. You’re making your judgement based on the abhorrent nature of the crime & whether he ever deserves to be relseased, which is a different subject.
You could argue that it’s equally as easy to con somebody into believing that you’re rehabilitated than it is to be rehabilitated. In that case, the risk is much more than zero, and it would be zero if the person is zapped to dust.
Of course you have to feel sorry for families that the 30 rehabilitated killers who were released to kill again over a ten year period like.
I’ve no idea how rehabilitation works within the current justice system in this country. However I do know that in some other countries it’s done extremely well, notably Denmark.
No. Read the thread. I was talking about a dickhead assertion that it doesn’t work, at all. Not the process, or it’s success rate here, nor specific crimes, merely the original assertion.
