• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Somali teen pirate to stand trial as adult in US

The idea that a 15 year old is a grown man is absurd. I can even think of my own mentality at age 15 vs. 18 or 19, and the difference is large. (As an aside, I also think that the difference between 19 and 23-24 is large as well). Developmentally you are not in the same place at all. I can think back on the mistakes I made as a 15 year old because I was too immature to understand.

Yes, a 15 year old, generally, knows right from wrong, but if you've been raised in international waters by ADULT pirates then your moral compass does not match that of U.S. laws or the laws of other countries. But this is the United States we're talking about... generally a criminal justice system based on punishment and not rehabilitation. I'm Canadian so my view on this is that the proceedings are barbaric for calling a 15 year old an adult.

He is young enough that he could be turned around. But no, let's put him in jail and toss away the key.

Nice to know you believe the child's father that he really is 15.

If you are old enough and mature enough to make the decision to have sex, or start driving a vehicle, you are old enough to realize that there are some things you just don't do. Like piracy on the seas, DUH.
 
Well put. To back this sentiment up with a scientific perspective, I bring facts about human brain development.

Frontal lobe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Psychologically, 15 year-olds are far from mature, and while they may appear to know "right vs. wrong," they are still very much undeveloped mentally. I think you'd have to be a pretty sick person to send someone away for the rest of their life because of a dumb mistake they made at 15.


Duke

Yeah,,,,, piracy,,,,, just a "dumb mistake"



.... OOPS!
 
No, treating systems of justice as tools of barbaric retribution based on age-old "eye-for-an-eye" methods which have shown to do nobody any good.
Playing dumb doesn't become you, but it appears to be your sole option.

Why's he still wasting oxygen? He was caught red-handed, didn't they have any rope on those ships?



I agree. Coddling criminals is a waste of time. Time that could be spent better creating reasoned systems of justice based on restorative models and trying criminals in logical and comprehensive ways. Allowing the punishment to fit the crime wouldn't be a bad step, either.



I cannot understand the conservative's affinity for the bestial, primitive days. Anyone with half a brain knows they certainly weren't better.


Duke

I cannot understand why you "rehabilitative" people can't seem to understand that rehabilitating criminals doesn't work.

Please, show me some sort of evidence that it works for the larger percentage of repeat offenders.
 
Oh, I'm sorry -- did you take exception to the 'if you dont agree with me, its because you're stupid' comment?

You can dish it out but can't take it?

Must be -- else you'd not have to respond with such melodrama.

Not at all--but it appears that you've given up. It's in your better interests.

Yeah,,,,, piracy,,,,, just a "dumb mistake"



.... OOPS!


Yes, absolutely. You don't know this person's situation. You don't know what it's like to grow up where he grew up, you don't know what sort of options are available to someone like that. But you can go ahead and assume everything's just as easy as your upbringing, everything's all cut and dry; right and wrong, good and evil...while in Somalia, it may be more a matter of starvation and food.
As far as the biopsychological perspective is concerned, I suggest you give the facts of brain development a more of an examination before you make a fool of yourself.

I cannot understand why you "rehabilitative" people can't seem to understand that rehabilitating criminals doesn't work.

Please, show me some sort of evidence that it works for the larger percentage of repeat offenders.

If you'd taken the time to read my post, you'd see that I did not mention rehabilitation. But you didn't, and you seem to have a fixation on rehabilitation, so rehabilitation it is then.

Rehabilitation - Does Correctional Rehabilitation Work?
In contrast, it is now apparent that rehabilitation programs generally reduce recidivism and, when conducted according to the "principles of effective treatment" (Gendreau), cut reoffending substantially (Andrews and Bonta; Cullen and Gendreau; Lipsey and Wilson; Lurigio). Evidence favorable to rehabilitation has been generated by a statistical technique called meta-analysis. Traditionally, criminologists such as Martinson would read over a group of studies evaluating treatment programs. They would then either describe what the studies found—a narrative review—or try to count how many studies showed that offender treatment worked or did not work—the "ballot box" method. A meta-analysis, however, essentially computes a batting average across all studies, calculating the average impact of treatment on recidivism. Using this method, the existing research, which now involves hundreds of evaluation studies, shows that rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism about 10 percentage points. Thus, if a control group had a recidivism rate of 55 percent, the treatment group's rate of re-offending would be 45 percent.

A group of Canadian psychologists interested in crime—Don Andrews, James Bonta, and Paul Gendreau being its most prominent members—have taken the analysis of effective rehabilitation one step farther. They had two important insights. First, they believed that treatment should focus on changing those factors that are most strongly associated with or "predict" recidivism (e.g., antisocial values and peer associations, low self-control). Second, they hypothesized that rehabilitation programs that "worked" to reduce recidivism should share common features. Thus, it made sense to investigate what distinguished programs that decreased re-offending from those that did not.

Based on meta-analyses of treatment studies, they found that in rehabilitation programs that conformed to the principles of effective intervention, recidivism was about 25 percentage points lower in the treatment as opposed to the control group (Andrews and Bonta; Cullen and Gendreau). These principles include: (1) target the known predictors of recidivism for change; (2) use cognitive-behavioral treatments that reinforce prosocial attitudes and behavior, seek to challenge and extinguish criminal thinking patterns, and provide alternative, prosocial ways of acting; (3) focus treatment interventions on high-risk offenders; (4) try to take into account characteristics of offenders (e.g., I.Q.) that might affect their responsivity to treatment; (5) employ staff that are well trained and interpersonally sensitive; and (6) provide offenders with aftercare once they leave the program (Gendreau).
 
Yes, absolutely. You don't know this person's situation. You don't know what it's like to grow up where he grew up, you don't know what sort of options are available to someone like that. But you can go ahead and assume everything's just as easy as your upbringing, everything's all cut and dry; right and wrong, good and evil...while in Somalia, it may be more a matter of starvation and food.
As far as the biopsychological perspective is concerned, I suggest you give the facts of brain development a more of an examination before you make a fool of yourself.
Aww that poor widdle guy.... he grew up being raised by criminals its no wonder he is doing this...

Got any ideas that don't cost 1 arm plus 1 leg to "rehabilitate" someone like that?

What, are we going to reward criminals by giving them advantages others don't so that we can "rehabilitate" them? Are we going to give them taxpayer funded access to schools, psychological treatment, land them a taxpayer payed home outside of the projects to live in? Give them a job that other non criminals couldn't get?

If we aren't going to do all this, then they will go back to their old lifestyle again.
 
Aww that poor widdle guy.... he grew up being raised by criminals its no wonder he is doing this...

If you can, I would recommend you stop putting words into my mouth; it does not become you.

As to whether he was raised by criminals, I don't know where you got this presumption. It's not so much a matter of upbringing as it is society; Somalia barely has a government, it's been wracked with civil war, there are no public schools, its economy is not industrialized (and only 2% of the land is arable), there are no telecommunications. The median age is 17, life expenctancy, 50, and literacy rates, 50%. Case in point, this isn't the kind of place you can just saunter on down Main Street, get a job and rent an apartment. It's a violent, dangerous (the most dangerous, in fact) country, and close to lawless. In a context such as this, piracy is damn near sensible. These conditions are difficult to comprehend, though, to the sheltered Westerner, and I do not expect comprehension.

Got any ideas that don't cost 1 arm plus 1 leg to "rehabilitate" someone like that?

The sort of effective rehabilitation of to which I refer and source are cheaper than re-incarceration. Recidivism is an expense; obviously, by lowering recidivism you're lowering costs.

What, are we going to reward criminals by giving them advantages others don't so that we can "rehabilitate" them? Are we going to give them taxpayer funded access to schools, psychological treatment, land them a taxpayer payed home outside of the projects to live in? Give them a job that other non criminals couldn't get?

If we aren't going to do all this, then they will go back to their old lifestyle again.

You are absolutely wrong.

First of all, rehabilitating criminals is not at all the same as rewarding. When you say things like that, you make my life much easier; I don't have to insult your intelligence, you do it for me. To answer the other questions, yes.

Delancey Street Foundation - Home

This is just one model; it works, and it works better than any of our largely punitive systems. And I'll reiterate this for you, this is all a lot cheaper than the punitive model, in which criminals are sent back to prison again and again, proving a near-constant drain on taxes and society.


Duke
 
If you can, I would recommend you stop putting words into my mouth; it does not become you.

As to whether he was raised by criminals, I don't know where you got this presumption. It's not so much a matter of upbringing as it is society; Somalia barely has a government, it's been wracked with civil war, there are no public schools, its economy is not industrialized (and only 2% of the land is arable), there are no telecommunications. The median age is 17, life expenctancy, 50, and literacy rates, 50%. Case in point, this isn't the kind of place you can just saunter on down Main Street, get a job and rent an apartment. It's a violent, dangerous (the most dangerous, in fact) country, and close to lawless. In a context such as this, piracy is damn near sensible. These conditions are difficult to comprehend, though, to the sheltered Westerner, and I do not expect comprehension.



The sort of effective rehabilitation of to which I refer and source are cheaper than re-incarceration. Recidivism is an expense; obviously, by lowering recidivism you're lowering costs.



You are absolutely wrong.

First of all, rehabilitating criminals is not at all the same as rewarding. When you say things like that, you make my life much easier; I don't have to insult your intelligence, you do it for me. To answer the other questions, yes.

Delancey Street Foundation - Home

This is just one model; it works, and it works better than any of our largely punitive systems. And I'll reiterate this for you, this is all a lot cheaper than the punitive model, in which criminals are sent back to prison again and again, proving a near-constant drain on taxes and society.


Duke

So, we shouldn't punish people for doing wrong things, we should "treat" them like they have some kind of disease?

You are aware that most criminals CHOOSE to do the things they do right?
 
So, we shouldn't punish people for doing wrong things, we should "treat" them like they have some kind of disease?

You are aware that most criminals CHOOSE to do the things they do right?

Of course I do. One of the central ideas of these programs is to teach them how to make the right choices in the future (thus slashing recidivism). Also, it gives offenders more choices in life, by giving them job skills, education, et cetera.


Duke
 
Of course I do. One of the central ideas of these programs is to teach them how to make the right choices in the future (thus slashing recidivism). Also, it gives offenders more choices in life, by giving them job skills, education, et cetera.


Duke

While at the same time giving no harsh "punishment" for doing said action.

If I knew that I could rob people at gunpoint and get assigned to some BS mind doctor dude who is going to try to "teach" me crap instead of losing my freedom. I'd keep robbing people.
 
While at the same time giving no harsh "punishment" for doing said action.

If I knew that I could rob people at gunpoint and get assigned to some BS mind doctor dude who is going to try to "teach" me crap instead of losing my freedom. I'd keep robbing people.

Nobody is saying that penalty wouldn't be part of the equation here, Caine. These rehabilitation programs of which I reference are not meant to replace prisons, or other elements of the justice system, but to supplement them. I begin to wonder whether you've actually read any of the links I've provided.

Robbing someone at gunpoint is no less of a crime under a justice system using elements of restorative/rehabilitative programs. Deterrents certainly still exist, no less so than in other systems.

Look, until you give my points and ideas a real hearing, and make the minimal effort necessary to know what the hell you're actually debating against here, I don't see any point in continuing this.


Duke
 
Nobody is saying that penalty wouldn't be part of the equation here, Caine. These rehabilitation programs of which I reference are not meant to replace prisons, or other elements of the justice system, but to supplement them. I begin to wonder whether you've actually read any of the links I've provided.

Robbing someone at gunpoint is no less of a crime under a justice system using elements of restorative/rehabilitative programs. Deterrents certainly still exist, no less so than in other systems.

Look, until you give my points and ideas a real hearing, and make the minimal effort necessary to know what the hell you're actually debating against here, I don't see any point in continuing this.


Duke

Then what are you proposing that isn't already in place?

There are hundreds of programs in the current corrections system like this being used today.

Very few if any of them actually work.

In order to rehabilitate ANYONE for ANYTHING (criminal lifestyle, drug habit, etc), the person has to WANT to rehabilitate, they have to want to make a change. You can't "brainwash" them by "coaching" them into making better choices.

The problem comes when the person is released and returns to the same environment they were in when they left. Thus my mention of funding to move people to another location and get them a job, etc.

You can't FORCE someone to rehabilitate. Just like forcing someone to see a psychologist does nothing for them, as the psychologist merely assists someone with figuring out their problems rather than doing it for them, but those who willingly go and do it for the right reasons will usually find results.

So your 25% less repeat offenders "study" is merely pointing out that the methods of rehabilitation assisted more with helping those who already wanted to make a change. I will give your study that much credit. And to an extent the first line of "rehabilitative" programs aims to do that too. That would be called probation. As im certain you know probation comes with suspending a sentence and requiring someone to meet certain conditions based upon the circumstances involving the specific offense to which the subject has been found guilty of.

Unfortunately the vast majority of repeat offenders are beyond rehabilitation because they do not care nor desire to make a change in their lifestyle. And should that day come when a repeat offender decides he/she wants to make a change, they will seek the help they need either while still incarcerated or after their release.

And it usually involves a change in environment.
 
Then what are you proposing that isn't already in place?

No. I'm talking about ones that work, like the ones I've referenced and the ones you've ignored.


There are hundreds of programs in the current corrections system like this being used today.

Very few if any of them actually work.

Exactly. The ones I'm not talking about, and you're pretending I'm talking about because you haven't given me courtesy of noting my sources. I recommend you re-read the last sentence of my last post (or read for the first time, perhaps).

In order to rehabilitate ANYONE for ANYTHING (criminal lifestyle, drug habit, etc), the person has to WANT to rehabilitate, they have to want to make a change. You can't "brainwash" them by "coaching" them into making better choices.

Firstly, the trick is to get people to want to rehabilitate. It's not that difficult, in fact; most want to get back as a functioning member of society and avoid further infraction (particularly following a first offense, the most important time). Secondly, depending on how you define "brainwash" (certainly a word with a negative connotation), you can actually coach people into making better choices (if they're willing to learn, as you noted). It's not as easy as offenders wanting to make better choices, that doesn't do it; (good, effective) rehabilitative programs can bridge that gap and do a lot of good.

The problem comes when the person is released and returns to the same environment they were in when they left. Thus my mention of funding to move people to another location and get them a job, etc.

And thus the source I gave you of such a program (a highly successful, effective program, unlike the ones you rightfully mentioned). Programs such as these (which are not as common as they ought to be, in my opinion), help the offenders and lift a burden from the taxpayers by doing a lot to prevent recidivism. So are we in agreement here, that what you mention up there is a large part of the problem, and that it can be solved? Look, a sentence without a parenthetical statement, right there (do you see it?)!
Also, it's more than moving people to another location and giving them a job, other important aspects of the program are career counseling, furthering/completing education, and giving people valuable occupational skills. With Delancey Street (the program I sourced), no, the jobs they're given are not available to the public, because all of the workers are part of the program.
So your 25% less repeat offenders "study" is merely pointing out that the methods of rehabilitation assisted more with helping those who already wanted to make a change. I will give your study that much credit.

Yes, 25% less than a control group didn't reoffend. The same 25% in the control group that helped those who wanted to change got nothing, and reoffended. That's a big difference, and a big help. Furthermore, this particular program is a lonely example, an island in a sea of pure punitive justice if you will. The real scope of effective rehabilitation has not been seen in the U.S.. If such programs were maximized, focused on first offenders, and treated (at least initially) with something of a scientific bent to see what is most effective, results could be much higher. The goals that I mentioned above could be perhaps achieved in a large part. Studies such as that one are really just a sampling, a small, though important, example and not wholly representative of the capability of restorative reform and rehabilitative programs.

And to an extent the first line of "rehabilitative" programs aims to do that too. That would be called probation. As im certain you know probation comes with suspending a sentence and requiring someone to meet certain conditions based upon the circumstances involving the specific offense to which the subject has been found guilty of.

Unfortunately the vast majority of repeat offenders are beyond rehabilitation because they do not care nor desire to make a change in their lifestyle.

I'm not challenging this at this juncture(I somewhat agree, though it would be best if you provide a source, a study, a report, et cetera). However, this is true because of a cardinal failing in our justice system; when someone goes through the system the first time without effective rehabilitation, though they may want on some level to change their ways, they offend again much more often. After another time or two, they often feel hopeless, like they can't change, and therefore cease wanting to; the desire that you mention vanishes. This is not generally a problem with human nature as much as it is our own programs. There is a lot of potential here, potential we haven't explored.


And should that day come when a repeat offender decides he/she wants to make a change, they will seek the help they need either while still incarcerated or after their release.

You know, from this whole thing I had you figured for something of a fatalistic pessimist, Caine, but you threw me for a loop on this one.
That's a lot of confidence that you're putting in the human spirit, though, that if a repeat offender kinda feels like he or she might want to fly straight, that he or she will just go right out there and seek out the help he or she needs. I believe some people will, absolutely, but I also think that there are a lot of people who would like to change their ways but might not have the gusto, if you will, to just set on out there. Ideally, we would maximize the exposure to inmates about the aforementioned programs (all inmates do not have said resources when in prison, as you said, and all of them do not have easy access to them upon release, dumping them into the same environments that got them into the position in the first place).

I think, perhaps, a lot of this disagreement stems from your experience on the police force, and mine in other parts of the justice system. I hope we can reconcile our differences here and come to an agreement. :mrgreen:


Duke
 
Back
Top Bottom