Speaking idealistically:

A crime is an offense against another citizen's rights. Society exists to protect that citizen's rights. To enprison a criminal has nothing to do with retribution, punishment, or compensation. It is done to prevent that criminal from breaching the rights of citizens again, quite similar to quarantining diseased people to prevent them from infecting others. It also has the effect of being a deterrant to other potential criminals.

In certain cases, the criminal can recompense for the crime. For instance, if someone steals something from someone, the government should require them to return/replace it along with something extra to that person, as a form of interest, as well as to pay for the cost of government intervention and any attourney fees the victim owes. However, if this criminal has a history of repeated theft, then, in addition to the above compensation, they should also be imprisoned for a period of time to prevent further theft and discourage them from doing so in the future.

If however, that person has a history of theft in the past, but has not stolen anything for a long time, then they should simply be required to compensate as described above. There is no need to imprison them. Whether they are sorry, wealthy (no longer caring to steal), or simply cautious is irrelevant: They are no longer stealing.

The law does not exist to rebuke immorality, but to safeguard the rights of citizens.

There are some crimes for which there is no compensation. A murderer cannot return life to the victim. A rapist cannot reverse the psychological and physical rammifications of rape on the victim. In these situations, people feel that revenge (often called "justice") is necessary (e.g. a rapist should be castrated, or a murderer executed). These crimes, however, do not justify such brutal reactions.

A person convicted of murder should be imprisoned to prevent further cases. If, however, that person murdered years ago and has not since done anything criminal, imprisonment is unnecessary. In the latter case, or in the former case after the criminal appears to be a danger no longer, the criminal should be released and on permanent paroll.

The emotional impact of murder on the people who knew the victim, however, cannot be appeased through brutality to the criminal. It is not the government's responsibility to make them feel better, no more than in the case of death by natural causes.

First of all, don't bring the caste system into this, because had to do with all sorts of other stuff and is very complicated blah blah blah. As for the purpose of punishment, I really don't know if rehabilitation is the point of punishment. I don't think that we, as a society, know what we seek when punishing wrongdoers. In many instances, the punishment is very blatantly and admittedly giving someone "what they deserve." At other times it is rehabilitation. At other times the person is merely undermining to society and the most important thing is to reduce the damage that they inflict at any cost. And some times people are even punished in order to have examples made of themselves. I don't think that law has ever been about "fairness," not in that it is the same for everybody but that it is what a child might call "fair." That is to say, if we are imprisoning a person to better them for the good of society, then rehabilitation indicates that their time should be up and they should be permitted to re-enter society. However, I am very skeptical if that even remotely has to do with the real reason that we punish people. If anything I think it is because criminals mock the validity of laws, and that is unbearable to the law makers, the enforcers and law abiding citizens because it is a mockery of all of them, so the punishment serves as a vindication to all those who have been "mocked" by the crime. Not to say rehabilitation doesn't play a major role in it too a lot. Just putting it out there that punishment isn't so ideal.

__________________
"...for the time being I gave up writing- there is already too much truth in the world- an overproduction which cannot be consumed!" ~Otto Rank

People might change, but evil is forever.


Some people are just bastards. They were bastards when they were children, they became bigger bastards when they grew up. They went from stealing toys and giving wedgies to stealing credit cards and assaulting their spouses..


Noone is entitled to mercy. Noone should be given mercy.


We're far too leniant in this country. Death solves all problems. No man--no problem.

I've changed myself almost dramatically a fair few times over my life (which has been pretty short, really) and I can safely say people are perfectly able to learn from mistakes and turn themselves around and I suspect almost nobody is totally incapable of it- that being the reason why its neccesary for us to actually learn, even in the hardest way (I mean if we do something wrong and don't pay in any way for it, it's not that likely that we'll ever wisen up..) If someone screws up and they're lucky, but more importantly a decent person, they'll learn. There would be no point in that case to continue to judge and punish somebody for the rest of their life if they've done their time and truly repented. Besides being pointless, it would be horribly unfair and senseless. But if they've done something serious, like taken a life for no just reason, deliberately, their time shouldn't be over just because they've learned and are sorry- an eye for an eye, its only fair. Similarly just because a persons time is over desn't mean they've truly changed at all (even if they try to say they have.) And as far as judging someone for the rest of their life- unfortunately even if someone no longer deserves to be punished, they're still bound to get a certain level of scrutiny from the rest of the world for what they've done, mainly because of the question of whether they're ever likely to do it again, even if it's extremely doubtful, and also the fact that sometimes we hold grudges forever if we've been wronged- and that is unfortunately something that a wrongdoer just has to take, not neccesarily as punishment. Point being... of course it's unfair for a person to be punished and judged forever for what they've done, after all any remotely decent human can change, but it's the right of the rest of us to feel secure, and if that means being wary of someone for a past crime then its understandable. For me it would take a lot for me to write someone off completely, but I can understand why its done, even if its not always very fair...