The Treatment of Mentally Ill Criminals (Colorado Shooting during Batman Premiere)

All righty, this thread is becoming frustrating at this point. MissNanci, this is the SD, so you do need to be prepared to face criticism and give more justification for your viewpoint - simply responding like this:

Everyone on ZU is clearly a softie and too sympathetic to murderers. So I will stop talking.

isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid.

Same goes for other posters - I've already deleted one post for being non-constructive.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

Everybody acts like just because they are human their life is special. Humans are just animals which evolved to have intelligence. If I could I would have all of them tortured. And you guys ask what would torture do? A reason why so many criminals have the guts to do all they do is because they know they will get off easy.

the facts are against you. Norway has some of the most humane prisons in the world and also has some of the lowest murder rates, incarceration rates, and recidivism rates in the world.

As The Right Bemoans Norway's Criminal Justice System, It Is One Of The Safest Countries On Earth | ThinkProgress

seems treating people like humans and attempting to rehabilitate them into working members of society instead of treating them like monsters, torturing them, and alienating them from society tends to make them act more like humans and less like monsters. Who would have guessed?

MissNanci- Don't you see what you're saying? You are a human being, and, by that logic, you are nothing more than an animal who evolved to have intelligence, just like every last human being on the planet. You, myself, Antigone, Miyamoto, JK Rowling, Todd Howard, and Nicolas Sarkozy...we're all just hairless apes who evolved bigger brains.

So, none of us deserve human rights?

The reason the Dark Ages lasted as long as it did was because most of the higher ups thought that an 'eye for an eye' was the best way to go.

Harsh punishments has never been a very good deterrent on crimes. In the past, crimes of theft - even under desperation, such as when the thief in question was starving - was punishable by amputation, i.e. the chopping off of the hand. The Chinese maintained the punishment of "slow slicing" - 0r the "death of a thousand cuts" - well into the 20th century. It has not stopped perpetrators from committing criminal acts. Let's be very clear here: People who know certain acts are wrong do not need the threat of heavy penalties to not commit a crime unless they are truly desperate, and people who do not care about such ethical standards will also not care about the threat of harsh punishments. Penalties that undermine human rights are not an effective deterrent against crime, and you gain nothing from doing so.

On the flip side, harsh punishment has negative effects on the people who have not committed a crime. It tells the citizenry, as well as governments in third-world nations, that violence and torture is totally a-okay. Regimes whom we accused today of human rights violations get to point at bastions of democracy - countries that are supposed to lead by example - and cry, "Well, they're doing it, so we can too~" It undermines the due process of law, it weakens faith in the institutions, and it encourages a culture of hate and vengeance, none of which we need.

And lastly, it comes back to recidivism. While it is entirely arguable that criminals as heinous as these are highly difficult to rehabilitate, numerous studies have shown that attempts at rehabilitation are always more effective and more beneficial to society than straight out incarceration. It doesn't mean a "slap on the wrist punishment"; if psychologists and specialists cannot prove that this person is reformed and can contribute as a productive member of society, they do not leave prison. But I will remind you that Norway - which has a maximum prison sentence of twenty years (excluding additional five-year periods if psychiatrists still considers a prisoner a threat to society) and no death penalty - is not only much safer than the United States - which suffers from a culture of vengeance and cruelty and hate - but also has a lower rate of recidivism: Only 20% of people who go to prison in Norway ever re-offend, while 67% on the United States do. So unless someone wants to tell me that Norwegians are inherently superior to Americans (hush, Norwegians), then I consider rehabilitation to be a working method, and harsh punishments to be a detriment.

Verdict: Harsh punishments is not an effective deterrent, and brings almost no benefits to society, but they can cause more harm than good.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

See but why should they have the right to be treated humane? Why? I honestly don't get how some people can want those monsters treated nicely after what they did. They sure didn't stop and think about all those innocent lives that they took. Why should we care about there life? The world is overpopulated anyways. Monsters like this just don't have any rights in my opinion. If it's someone you loved who was killed by these guys, would you want him being treated nice in prison? And being hired friends in prison. I heard that is what Norway does.

Treat someone like a monster, and they will become a monster.

Killers are not born, they are made.

It very truly is that simple.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

See but why should they have the right to be treated humane? Why? I honestly don't get how some people can want those monsters treated nicely after what they did. They sure didn't stop and think about all those innocent lives that they took. Why should we care about there life? The world is overpopulated anyways. Monsters like this just don't have any rights in my opinion. If it's someone you loved who was killed by these guys, would you want him being treated nice in prison? And being hired friends in prison. I heard that is what Norway does.

You seem to have missed the part where treating criminals humanely greatly decreases the crime rate, resulting in fewer innocent people being hurt.

Demanding harsh punishments just means you get more crime. You really want to be pro-crime?

Originally Posted by MissNanci

See but why should they have the right to be treated humane?

because it reduces the amount of suffering in the world and reduces the amount of crime committed.

If it's someone you loved who was killed by these guys, would you want him being treated nice in prison?

if it would result in fewer loved ones being killed by criminals, then yes, that is exactly what I would want.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

See but why should they have the right to be treated humane? Why? I honestly don't get how some people can want those monsters treated nicely after what they did.

Stop accusing us of wanting to treat these people "nicely". It is misleading and, well, incorrect.

They sure didn't stop and think about all those innocent lives that they took. Why should we care about there life? The world is overpopulated anyways.

Many developed countries actually face a population crisis in the other direction in the semi-near future.

Having said that, the idea that we should be less lenient on someone for reasons out of their control is simply sickening.

Monsters like this just don't have any rights in my opinion. If it's someone you loved who was killed by these guys, would you want him being treated nice in prison? And being hired friends in prison. I heard that is what Norway does.

Not "nice". But I wouldn't want to stoop down to his level. That would make me no worse than him. It would make me guided by wrathful emotion rather than clear-headed rationality.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

See but why should they have the right to be treated humane? Why? I honestly don't get how some people can want those monsters treated nicely after what they did. They sure didn't stop and think about all those innocent lives that they took. Why should we care about there life? The world is overpopulated anyways. Monsters like this just don't have any rights in my opinion. If it's someone you loved who was killed by these guys, would you want him being treated nice in prison? And being hired friends in prison. I heard that is what Norway does.

I'd like to ask you a question really, really quickly before I continue. If you can only choose one, what do you think is more important: Making sure that the criminal suffers, or making sure that there are as few crimes as possible?

Originally Posted by MissNanci

No I don't want to be pro crime. I just want them to get what they deserve. It makes my blood boil to know that all those innocent people are dead and will not continue living while the killer is being treated humanely in prison.

The problem is that by encouraging "what they deserve" (or, really, what "people think they deserve"), you are encouraging an increase of crimes because of recidivism. Poetic justice would be great if we can both impose harsh punishments (well, kind of, but let's just not look too hard into this for now) and decrease crime at the same time. Unfortunately, it's rarely the case. And as I have said before, it's really a question of whether you feel having less crime is more important, or if punishing people is more important.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

No I don't want to be pro crime. I just want them to get what they deserve. It makes my blood boil to know that all those innocent people are dead and will not continue living while the killer is being treated humanely in prison.

It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall when I say this, but:

By giving them "what they deserve" you are not solving the problem, you are creating new ones. By giving them "what they deserve" you lose the chance of learning of why such crimes are committed, and therefore lose the chance of preventing those crimes from happening in the first place. By "giving them what they deserve" you are not teaching the criminal anything, you are not teaching other criminals anything, and you are certainly not teaching yourself anything. There cannot be progress in society without knowledge, and quashing the chances of gaining said knowledge is, dare I say it, the very antithesis of progression.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

I would say as few crimes as possible. I do not think that this rehabilitation thing would work in the US though. There are too many physcos and drug addicts with guns in the US to see a crime rate decrease anytime soon.

Except the crime rate has decreased.

And oh, would you look at that - without resorting to methods like torture or the denial of a fair trial.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

I am going to throw in a new solution here which most of you would probably disagree with. You say instead of killing criminals how about we have them help the society instead? Okay let's stop doing testing on poor innocent animals and do our testing on them instead. This would be very beneficial for medical research anyways since they would be testing products and chemicals on actual humans and not chimps or so.

That is still not beneficial to anyone, much less society or science.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

The problem is that by encouraging "what they deserve" (or, really, what "people think they deserve"), you are encouraging an increase of crimes because of recidivism. Poetic justice would be great if we can both impose harsh punishments (well, kind of, but let's just not look too hard into this for now) and decrease crime at the same time. Unfortunately, it's rarely the case. And as I have said before, it's really a question of whether you feel having less crime is more important, or if punishing people is more important.

I disagree. Poetic justice is not what we should strive for, even if it worked as well as rehabilitation.

Punishing people is part of the criminal justice system because it's a deterrent. It's not a great one, but it does keep some people from committing crimes, so that's good.

It should not, however, be an end unto itself. There is no point in hurting people if you can get the same end result by not hurting them. All you've done is increase the amount of pain and suffering in the world.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

I would say as few crimes as possible. I do not think that this rehabilitation thing would work in the US though. There are too many physcos and drug addicts with guns in the US to see a crime rate decrease anytime soon.

The US is pretty light on most crimes, actually. It has a massive prison population (1% of the total population, which means it's more prison-happy than Stalinist Russia by a huge margin), but that's mostly due to people being locked up for 20 years for possessing a few grams of marijuana.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

Yes it would. Have you heard about all those cases with medicines having nasty side effects? Thos can be prevented by testing them on the actual species it's going to be used for. I'm sure we get much further with all sorts of medical treatments if we had people to test them on.

A mouse is just as effective at testing the harmful affects of drugs as it would a human, because mice are mammals just like we are, they're just smaller and less intelligent. True, it may not be 100% to the T the same, but our biological makeup is.

Still no.

Originally Posted by John

I disagree. Poetic justice is not what we should strive for, even if it worked as well as rehabilitation.

Punishing people is part of the criminal justice system because it's a deterrent. It's not a great one, but it does keep some people from committing crimes, so that's good.

It should not, however, be an end unto itself. There is no point in hurting people if you can get the same end result by not hurting them. All you've done is increase the amount of pain and suffering in the world.

Apologies, allow me to clarify: I do not support poetic justice; I was just mentioning that it might be considered a "good" thing for people who believe that people reap what they sow, and was making this a point to MissNanci about why we must prioritize the safety of society over the punishment of criminals. Otherwise, I agree with you: Whatever means we take must ultimately result in the end of society being safe and free.

Originally Posted by MissNanci

Yes it would. Have you heard about all those cases with medicines having nasty side effects? Those can be prevented by testing them on the actual species it's going to be used for. I'm sure we get much further with all sorts of medical treatments if we had people to test them on.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm fairly certain that all medicines intended to be used by humans already have to go through human trials before being approved for general use by the FDA. That's how they learn about those adverse side-effects to begin with. So, uh, you're not actually solving any problems here.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Apologies, allow me to clarify: I do not support poetic justice; I was just mentioning that it might be considered a "good" thing for people who believe that people reap what they sow, and was making this a point to MissNanci about why we must prioritize the safety of society over the punishment of criminals. Otherwise, I agree with you: Whatever means we take must ultimately result in the end of society being safe and free.

Agreed. If keeping society safe and lowering the crime rate means we feed our criminals steak dinners and let them sleep on luxury beds all night, I'm all for it. It's a very small price to pay compared to more innocent people being harmed or killed.

And what would you propose we do if somewhere down the line, new evidence proves an inmate's innocence?

Apologize for torturing and conducting medical experiments on them and then send them home?

Originally Posted by MissNanci

I would say as few crimes as possible. I do not think that this rehabilitation thing would work in the US though. There are too many physcos and drug addicts with guns in the US to see a crime rate decrease anytime soon.

The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews

To quote from that article:

Systematic reviews (meta-analyses) of those studies, while varying greatly in coverage and technique, display remarkable consistency in their overall findings. Supervision and sanctions, at best, show modest mean reductions in recidivism and, in some instances, have the opposite effect and increase reoffense rates. The mean recidivism effects found in studies of rehabilitation treatment, by comparison, are consistently positive and relatively large.

In layman's terms--these people took hundreds of separate studies of rehabilitation vs. punishment and their effects on recidivism, compiled all the data, and analyzed it.

"Supervision and sanctions", basically punishment, either show modest positive results (and sometimes increased reoffense rates, like people have been asserting in this thread).

Rehabilitation treatment is uniformly positive. The effects are larger than punishment. In other words, rehabilitation is far more effective than punishment, both in terms of the number of people rehabilitated AND at decreasing reoffense rates.

This study, without a doubt, shows that rehabilitation is a more capable and more effective method of the treatment of criminals than punishment is.



I have no other words (but a lot of scientific data) to describe how completely and utterly wrong you are at this point.

Here's a homework assignment: read that article in its entirety. Read the materials it cites--there are even handy hyperlinks in the article itself. Spend an hour thinking what killing and torturing those who kill and torture means to you. Then let's discuss this.

EDIT: I'm on a university server that gets access to all sorts of scientific databases, so if it's necessary I can provide relevant links in case some of you aren't able to read the article I'm citing.