If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill...........................

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

jamesrage does not know what 'rehabilitate' means.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Maybe one pill, however that is not possible. But still, when you screw up, you are illegally selling pills and all, you need to pay the price. If rehab comes with one pill, great, but still, the person who committed the crime needs to pay for that crime.

If it were possible, I would be encouraged; however, given our situation at this time, I think we are doing the best we can at this point with relevance to this topic.
Purrs,
Pookie

Re:

1069 said:

I believe this issue has already been explored thoroughly in Anthony Burgess's "A Clockwork Orange".
If it were possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill, it would be unethical to do so. Even if they agreed to such a scheme, there would be passive coercion involved, ie the hope of leniency or early release.

If such a pill were available, the only way it would be ethical to use it would be if it were made available to anyone in the free world who wanted it (in other words, not to prisoners).
In other words, people who had not been arrested and imprisoned for crimes but nevertheless felt they would benefit from taking such a pill would be allowed to request one.
And even then, I feel the ethicality is questionable. You're talking about removing a person's free will, which some argue is all that makes us human.

Click to expand...

Meh, that was just a movie. Assuming that a person had the option to serve their sentence OR take the pill (rather than being forced to take it), I don't see what the problem would be.

It wouldn't be depriving them of their free will, any moreso than being raised in an environment that discourages crime is depriving people of their free will.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Meh, that was just a movie.

Click to expand...

Anthony Burgess's "A Clockwork Orange" was "just a movie".

okay. :roll:

It was a classic novel with deep social and ethical implications.
It's taught in colleges and universities around the world. So I'm told.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

1069 said:

Anthony Burgess's "A Clockwork Orange" was "just a movie".

okay. :roll:

It was a classic novel with deep social and ethical implications.
It's taught in colleges and universities around the world. So I'm told.

Click to expand...

Still, just a work of fiction. Why would it be immoral to make people not want to commit crimes? Good parents do that all the time.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Kandahar said:

Still, just a work of fiction. Why would it be immoral to make people not want to commit crimes? Good parents do that all the time.

Click to expand...

Good parents drug their children to prevent them from having the ability to make choices and exercise free will?

Not in Texas.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

1069 said:

Good parents drug their children to prevent them from having the ability to make choices and exercise free will?

Not in Texas.

Click to expand...

In Clockwork Orange, Alex didn't WANT to commit crimes anymore. I don't see how this is depriving him of his free will (or why this is necessarily a bad thing). Alex didn't want to commit crimes because he had been conditioned to become physically ill at the thought. Similarly, I don't want to commit crimes because I have been conditioned to fear prison, regard most crimes as unethical, and regard most crimes as a poor risk-reward tradeoff.

What's the fundamental difference between Alex and myself? Haven't we both been deprived of our free will in some way?

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

In Clockwork Orange, Alex didn't WANT to commit crimes anymore.

Click to expand...

I don't think you've read it, if you think that.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

1069 said:

I don't think you've read it, if you think that.

Click to expand...

Nope I haven't, I've just seen the movie. Perhaps they changed some things from the book, but basically he was conditioned to become sick at the thought of violence or sex, and so he no longer had any interest in doing those things.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Kandahar said:

I don't see how this is depriving him of his free will (or why this is necessarily a bad thing).

Click to expand...

Choice! The boy has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement! The insincerety was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

faminedynasty said:

Choice! The boy has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement! The insincerety was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.

Click to expand...

Self-interest prevents a lot of people from committing crimes, even if they haven't taken a pill to be cured. That's the whole point of our justice system...to make the results of crimes unattractive enough to deter most people.

Are THOSE people incapable of free will? If so, why is that inherently a bad thing? Is having the free will to commit multiple murders more important than the right to not be murdered?

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

I suppose the difference is that Alex was rendered (supposedly) physically incapable of moral choice. That's not quite the same as a person simply being detered by harsh consequences of an illegal action. I don't think there's much need to explain the importance of moral choice up to and including the descision to engage in violence--the basic freedom to do what one has to. Violence is not universally wrong and is often necessary. Sex can be nice too from time to time.
I recognize the importance of detterence in the legal system, but I do not think that punishment is irrelevant, or that it isn't consdiered by those running the legal system. And I question the effectiveness of detterence in a sense. For example, I don't buy the notion that the death penalty is an effective detterence against murder for an instant. And in my own life I can't think of many times that I refrained from doing something because it was illegal. I have often refrained from things which are immoral, but that's not really the same. We criminals don't intend on getting caught after all.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

faminedynasty said:

I suppose the difference is that Alex was rendered (supposedly) physically incapable of moral choice. That's not quite the same as a person simply being detered by harsh consequences of an illegal action. I don't think there's much need to explain the importance of moral choice up to and including the descision to engage in violence--the basic freedom to do what one has to. Violence is not universally wrong and is often necessary. Sex can be nice too from time to time.

Click to expand...

The poll question, as I understand it, refers to crimes. I can't see any reason not to want to "cure" someone of the desire to murder people if possible. It would save lives and prevent the offender from ending up in prison again.

faminedynasty said:

I recognize the importance of detterence in the legal system, but I do not think that punishment is irrelevant, or that it isn't consdiered by those running the legal system.

Click to expand...

But what is the purpose of punishing crimes? How would these purposes still hold if the offender was "cured" and would not reoffend?

faminedynasty said:

And I question the effectiveness of detterence in a sense. For example, I don't buy the notion that the death penalty is an effective detterence against murder for an instant.

Click to expand...

Nor do I.

faminedynasty said:

And in my own life I can't think of many times that I refrained from doing something because it was illegal.

Click to expand...

Maybe not consciously, but everything you've been raised to believe would lead you to that conclusion. If you were born in the slums of Rio de Janeiro, you might feel otherwise.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Kandahar said:

But what is the purpose of punishing crimes? How would these purposes still hold if the offender was "cured" and would not reoffend?

Click to expand...

Having been born in a free society, and presumably as a competent and autonomous agent of free will, with guaranteed legal rights--the offender elected to commit an illegal act of violence. I don’t think that it would just be the religious types who would think that this warrants punishment, even if the perpetrator would be good from after the commission of the initial act. I don't think we necessarily have to get eye-for-an-eye-ish to embrace this, nor Kantian to believe that acts of evil warrant punishment.
For example, the 90 year old nazis living down in South America certainly aren't likely to hurt anyone any more, they certainly won't be putting anyone in camps anymore. In fact they may live harmless, kind lives, may be good neighbors, grandparents and friends to people today. But you still hope the bastards get caught and made to answer for their crimes.

Maybe not consciously, but everything you've been raised to believe would lead you to that conclusion. If you were born in the slums of Rio de Janeiro, you might feel otherwise.

Click to expand...

I wasn't born in Rio, but I have been lucky enough in my short adult life to have spent some (brief) time broke, cold, hungry and pissed off. In that state the legality of something is no detterence from hurting someone, stealing, etc, it really isn't. One has to rely on the kindness of their heart and the strength of their conviction.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Kandahar said:

Not likely. Assuming that the person couldn't "profit" from the crime (because they would come to regret it and not want to repeat it), there would be little justification for them to commit it in the first place.

Click to expand...

Nope! Think of it as inconsistent preferences. The potential criminal knows that they can receive criminal benefits now and, when it comes to be punished, merely move on to a new preference path. Given there is no punishment, the incentive to commit those crimes is increased.

Most crimes against person/property (I'm excluding drug offenses here) are committed because the offender believes he will benefit from committing the crime in some way. The "pill release" would remove that benefit, thus negating the reason to commit the crime at all.

Click to expand...

That only works if the criminal act, being found guilty and then receiving the pill occurs instantaneously. It doesn't. The criminal knows that if they get away with it, they receive the benefits from the crime. If they are caught they only lose the psychic benefits from the crime. The probability of a positive net expected benefit is increased.

The problem is that you're going for the wrong angle. Take the US's extensive use of prison. That has two conflicting effects. First, we can expect a positive deterrence effect (tending to reduce crime now). Second, we can expect a negative prison population effect (i.e. when the prisoners are finally released there will be an increase in crime from re-offending). The pill eliminates the second effect but, without prison, does nothing for the first effect.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

RightinNYC said:

Of course. Why bother with prison if not to rehabilitate?

Click to expand...

As long as there is restitution of wrongs to the level necessary to satisfy the community majority. There still has to be justice along with that rehabilitation.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

jamesrage said:

Lets say if it was possible to rehabilitate every criminal and make them feel remorse with a single pill and there were no chances of relapses,should criminals be given the pill and released immediately back into society/not have to serve out a punishment or should they still serve out what ever punishment the courts gave them

Click to expand...

This hypothetical question does not factor in the parole system.

A rehabilitation pill should be no different from early release parole. In reality, while we might like to take a position that demonstrates how tough on crime we are, the reality is that overcrowded prisons and crime school (people learning more criminal skills while inside) are elements that affect the prison system now: even in countries where a death penalty still exists.

So my position is that if someone takes a pill that brings about the moral and personal position in a former criminal that comes about through parole - why force the criminal to continue his or her sentence?

I note later on in the debate the term emotive term - "scumbag sympathisers" is used extensively - do you believe in parole or not? Or are we all "scumbag sympathisers" because we have not voted politicians in who will get rid of parole?

jamesrage said:

deterrence of criminal activity is the second priority.

Click to expand...

I think most studies show that prison is not an effective deterrence, even in societies with death penalties. Very often people commit crimes for all sorts of reasons that cannot be deterred by traditional tactics or policies.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Infinite Chaos said:

I think most studies show that prison is not an effective deterrence, even in societies with death penalties.

Click to expand...

I can't think of one study that dismisses prison as an effective deterrent. You do get analysis looking at extreme cases (e.g. the non-optimality of "3 strikes and you're out" approaches)

Very often people commit crimes for all sorts of reasons that cannot be deterred by traditional tactics or policies.

Click to expand...

This is certainly true. The classic example is the addict that requires a target income to meet his/her addiction needs. Punishment, at best, becomes irrelevant. However, that only describes that there are limits to deterrence.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Scucca said:

I can't think of one study that dismisses prison as an effective deterrent --- that only describes that there are limits to deterrence.

Click to expand...

I believe most criminologists recognise that there is a general deterrent but certainly harsher penalties or harsher sentences do not tend to reduce crime rates or fewer offences. Drink drivers for example seem to be deterred more by having their driving licence removed (but not all of them) than by a custodial sentence - although Canadas' conditional sentencing seems to have an effect on some drivers who aren't deterred by prison or licence removal alone.

From what I've read, prison is again more about public revenge even though society once tried to look at it from a point of rehabilitation first. There may be better ways to deter many criminals but not all will be popular with some of the more extreme minded who simply look at any alternative to prison as "liberalism gone mad".

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Infinite Chaos said:

I believe most criminologists recognise that there is a general deterrent but certainly harsher penalties or harsher sentences do not tend to reduce crime rates or fewer offences.

Click to expand...

The important aspect is 'marginal deterrence', where severity is used as part of minimising overall crime rates. It certainly would be ridiculous to have a prison sentence for all crimes. The problem is that prison becomes an easy means for politicians to kid the easily led with "tough on crime" rhetoric. We therefore can get cycles of prison use, where there are periods of over-use of the prison system.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Scucca said:

The important aspect is 'marginal deterrence', where severity is used as part of minimising overall crime rates.

Click to expand...

An interesting element of research for someone would be to find out how much this marginal deterrence actually costs (economically as well as real terms - rehabilitation and punishment). If the deterrent effect of prison is outweighed by the cost of housing, feeding and supervising then it is time to explore other means of treating offenders.

Scucca said:

The problem is that prison becomes an easy means for politicians to kid the easily led with "tough on crime" rhetoric.

Click to expand...

And that remains the major reason why prison doesn't really work on the whole. Politicians will always take the line that pleases the easily led before taking or making tough choices (in every arena really - not just prison) that may actually work better.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Infinite Chaos said:

An interesting element of research for someone would be to find out how much this marginal deterrence actually costs (economically as well as real terms - rehabilitation and punishment). If the deterrent effect of prison is outweighed by the cost of housing, feeding and supervising then it is time to explore other means of treating offenders.

Click to expand...

There has certainly been research into the relative costs of punishment. Not surprisingly, fines provide the cheapest means to acquire deterrence effects. They also have the added advantage that they can be related to the wealth of the offender (maximising any deterrent effect). Of course fines, to be a credible threat, still require the threat of imprisonment. Moreover, marginal deterrence must refer to a distribution of punishments and fines becomes increasingly irrelevant as severity of crime increases. Non-pecuniary crimes will require non-pecuniary punishments.

The costs from the criminal justice system are significant. However, the costs from crime are huge. Once we factor in pain and suffering (which of course are rather difficult to measure in any cost-benefit analysis), the deterrence effects will not have to be substantial for imprisonment to make economic sense.

And that remains the major reason why prison doesn't really work on the whole. Politicians will always take the line that pleases the easily led before taking or making tough choices (in every arena really - not just prison) that may actually work better.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Such government failures impinge on any discretionary policy. Such problems can be minimised. For example, it is always a good idea to avoid first-past-the-post politics as we get general consensus but dramatic shifts in policy in areas such as criminal justice (as parties attempt to stand out)

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

In various fantasy worlds there may be alternatives to prisons, but we don't live in a fantasy world. Well, a few of us do, but it is strictly an imaginary place that only they are aware of. The OP says "criminals", and IMHO a criminal is not someone who accidently or unintentionally does something wrong one time, but a repeat offender. Repeat offenders need a hard slap along the head to get their attention.
There is a boy here in Utah in intensive care because some idiot adult neighbor made some homemade "fireworks". Fireworks my bloated butt, it was a damn bomb, and he set it off in the street in front of children. That kind of stupidity deserves some prison time, if for no other reason than to make the perpetrator do some serious thinking. Is he a criminal? No, but he does need the rude awakening that some people require before they get less stupid.
As for career criminals, the ones who are repeat offenders, incarceration seems to be the only answer. We can make it cheaper by using Sheriff Joe's methods. Read up on him if you like, he is the sheriff of Maricopa county in Arizona. A real jerk to some, but the public keeps him around, because they like how he is tough on criminals.
Until the wizards invent magic pills that truly work, prison is the only answer.
I use to say that a better education for our kids will reduce the amount of criminals, but I know of some pretty smart crooks out there, so more schooling may not be the answer after all....
Maybe better parenting?

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

The way the hypothetical was described it sounds like the magic pill works with 100% efficacy on a single dose. That is obviously very important in determining the answer to the question.


I say "Yes, release them" for the following reasons.

Based on the "hypothetical", the existence of the magic pill would be unequivocal proof that the criminalty was caused by a disease. Thus the criminal is not responsible for their behavior and vengence is unwarranted.

First, you must consider disease-based criminality a mental illness, and since the only time treatment fro mental illness is madatory is when a person is a threat to themselves or others, the pill would become mandatory treatment for anyone with the criminality disease.

This means that the pill would be required for all potential criminals (based only on the premises set forth by this hypothetical situation) so there actually is 0 chance of the "pill release" causing criminality in this hypothetical situation (since it is already proven that criminality is a "disease" and thus consequences would have no bearing on criminal behavior).

If the criminality is 100% caused by a disease that was beyond the criminals control, there is no purpose to continued "punishment" because the person was definitively not responsible for their behavior (again, this would absolutely have to be true in this hypothetical situation for the situation to even be hypothetically possible, nor would they be capable of commiting the same behavior after treatment.

The interesting aspect of this debate is that since the construct creates the situation that people are not truly responsible for their actions, the incarceration of people could never bring about rehabilitation anyway. So there should never have been a release date set to begin with as the person who is incarcerated is guaranteed to be biologically predisposed to recidivism.

Whereas, in reality, the fact that incarceration and punishment can actuallly lead to rehabilitation proves that in reality, a magic pill can never exist because criminality is not a disease (except in very, very rare cases).


Now as to why these ex-criminals should be released, we need to address the reasons for incarceration:

There are two ONLY real (i.e. non-emotionally based) goals of incarceration and both as a detterant:

1. As a detterent of current crime by removing criminals from a postion where they can commit crimes
2. As a detterent for future crime (this can be recidivist crime, or potential crime form a person who fears incarceration/punishment)

These two reasons are the only reasons for incarcerating people. All other punishments that do not include removal from the general population are focused on goal two only.

Vengence for the victim/families is not a valid reason for punishment. If it were, the victim or their family would actually decide or bring about the actual punishment (direct vengence). If it were, there could be no punishment for crimes that are considered antisocial in nature without having a true, definable "victim" (prostitution, tax evasion, speeding, money laundering, etc).

If "vengence" were the primary goal of punishment, these "crimes" would be unpunishable.

The reason that the primary goal of punishment is that of a deterrant is far more important than that of vengence. It is the truly noble goal of preventing future victims.

If the prevention of future victims is assured by the existence of this pill (as described by the construct), then continued incarceration is pointelss since it will only act as a waste of tax dollars in order to satisfy a need for vengence. Even further, in this hypothetical situation, none of the "criminals" is truly responsible for their actions and thus any vengence would be against an innocent "victim" of an illness. (Hey, I'm not the guy who created the screwed up hypothetical.)

If reality were this easy, then we wouldn't need any vengence because ALL crime would be 100% preventable because all crime comes from a disease. In reality crime is not a disease, so the same logic does not apply.

Even crimes that are caused by diseases like schizophrenia are not curable from a one-time dose of medicine. Often times the people with these diseases stop taking their meds and are therefore full-on threats to society again.

So basically, creating this construct in order to wander off on a childish tirade against incorrectly perceived enemies is asanine.

Re: If it was possible to rehabilitate criminals with one pill.......................

Infinite Chaos said:

So my position is that if someone takes a pill that brings about the moral and personal position in a former criminal that comes about through parole - why force the criminal to continue his or her sentence?

Click to expand...

because they committed a crime that is why you force criminals to carry out their sentence.

I note later on in the debate the term emotive term - "scumbag sympathisers" is used extensively - do you believe in parole or not?Or are we all "scumbag sympathisers" because we have not voted politicians in who will get rid of parole?

Click to expand...

Seeing how alot of posters seem to have absolutely no regard for the victims of these criminals the term scumbag sympathizers seems fitting.

I think most studies show that prison is not an effective deterrence, even in societies with death penalties. Very often people commit crimes for all sorts of reasons that cannot be deterred by traditional tactics or policies.

Click to expand...

That study sounds like utter bull ****. Are you saying crime would not rise if we abolished prisons and other forms of punishment?