[codegladiator]

> Bullies themselves need counselling on managing their own needs and emotions rather than punishment

So, criminals also, by that logic, themselves need counseling on managing their own needs and emotions rather than punishment ?

[tiew9Vii]

Yes, exactly that, everything I read says rehabilitating prisoners greatly reduces re-offending.

That’s not to say they shouldn’t go to prison for a crime. While in prison it shouldn’t be just a punishment, the isolation is the punishment, the idea should be providing the help needed inside so when they come out they do not re-offend.

[imtringued]

I hate these types of questions. It's never clear what position the person who asks the question is taking.

In favor of punishment: Victims and relatives want compensation and since it is impossible to restore every situation, especially if the perpetrator has no money, destroyed something irreplaceable or killed someone, we want them to pay with their time instead. The primary goal is making the victims happy and preventing crime can take a back seat to that.

In favor of counseling: Law enforcement lags behind the actual rule violation. Someone is a criminal only after they have committed a crime. Therefore if your policy only targets criminals then it is already too late. It can't undo any damage and it cannot prevent any future damage after the criminal has been released. When they are released the reason they committed a crime didn't disappear. The perpetrator himself obviously didn't benefit from the punishment (in other words: he doesn't need punishment). Therefore the deterrence effect completely disappears and increasingly tough punishments do not influence the recidivism rate. Now imagine instead of targeting criminals after they have committed a crime we instead try the opposite. Suddenly we gain the ability to prevent a crime which is something the punishment only route doesn't allow us to do. So yes people definitively need help so they don't have to resort to committing crimes.

[swebs]

>So, criminals also, by that logic, themselves need counseling on managing their own needs and emotions rather than punishment?

Are we reading the same Hacker News? I see that statement expressed in like every fifth thread.

[Juliate]

Actually, yes, they do.

You want this, especially when you know they will one day get out of jail.

[devoply]

Not only that, they will have wives, girlfriends, and children; they may eventually have employees. You can not stop them period. They are a part of the human population. They can not be weeded out.

[codegladiator]

Bullies bully when they know they can get away with it (so does criminals). I just fail to follow your narrative.

I would alternatively suggest to make the punishment severe and make sure bullies can't get away with it.

[dangerface]

> Bullies bully when they know they can get away with it (so does criminals).

If they are facing reparations like rehabilitation they got caught.

> I would alternatively suggest to make the punishment severe and make sure bullies can't get away with it.

Harsher punishments do not deter people from committing crimes [0]

I get the sentiment but if you want results you got to face the reality.

[0] https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that...

[pdpi]

The question you're not asking is "why are people engaging in these behaviours?"

You don't have to deter people from engaging in bad behaviour if those people don't feel motivated to engage in those behaviours in the first place.

[jacobush]

They get motivated when their peers condone it. You and I are the bully. We just need the “right” environment.

[zozbot234]

Peers who condone bullying are probably being manipulated into doing so, by someone with narcissistic traits who is skilled at whipping up hate towards the intended victims. It's not a normal attitude at all, it's very much a red flag that something quite nasty is going on.

[rzwitserloot]

Yes, they do.

What would you like the point of your country's justice system to be? To be a venue for state controlled vengeance, where the victims (or the friends and family of a victim if somebody died) get to enjoy the fact that at least the criminal got their life ruined as well?

Or would you like it to be to attempt to deal with criminals in a fashion that reduced recidivism as much as is possible, allowing for compensation of victims where reasonable and possible, but providing explicitly no vengeance-based 'compensation'?

Because a justice system is going to look radically different depending on which option you want (especially if you're trying to optimize it so it does what you want it to do well, fairly, and cheaper than alternatives) – and the anti-recidivism style leads to vastly lower levels of crime. It's also vastly cheaper for society.

When you feel outrage at a child molester getting 5 years in a comfy jail cell, getting a state-paid education to boot – that's your sense of vengeance being offended. Be aware that satisfying it is incredibly expensive.

When you feel outrage at a child molester that gets out after 15 years and strikes again soon after – that's presumably you being upset that the justice system is, based on a rather lacking 'anecdotal evidence of 1', not doing its proper job.

Even if punishment isnt the point at all, incarceration and other restrictions of personal freedoms are likely required. How do you prevent recurrence of the crime?

There are some drastic options available. You could, purely out of economic expediency, just execute all criminals. But even if you're morally okay with that drastic measure, in practice that has a lot of externalities. so, _IF_ you free criminals at some point, it makes very little sense NOT to focus on reducing recidivism rates.

One could consider the punishment itself as an anti-crime measure: Use the fact that if you are convicted of a crime, you will be punished, as a deterrence. For some types of crime it works well, but for many, it has barely any effect. Crimes of passion and sexual deviancy just aren't reduced by measurable rates by increasing the punishment if caught and convicted, for example.

Add it all up? Yes, please. Provide counsel to criminals before you consider the punishment (but, as they ARE criminals, if the most effective counsel the state can provide requires significant reductions in personal freedoms, by all means).

[dangerface]

> So, criminals also, by that logic, themselves need counseling on managing their own needs and emotions rather than punishment ?

The point of prison to rehabilitate so yes. If we are just putting people in prison to get rid of them then why not actually get rid of them? If you don't believe in rehabilitation then life in prison is an expensive and cruel torture in comparison to just ending them.

[devoply]

Maybe if you counselled them and taught them how to manage their own needs and emotions many of them would not become criminals saving society many ills.

You can not eliminate the personality that needs bullying to validate themselves from the population. You can however hep them channel those needs into other things like entrepreneurship and leadership. To productively shape their needs for power over people rather than harassing and harming them.

[codegladiator]

This suggests that the bully/criminal didn't already knew that. Most bullies i have seen didn't become bully because of some trauma.... its just fun to dominate (not even validation IMO).

[yetihehe]

Anegdotically, I know one bully from high school, who was trying to bully even me in college first year, but he changed, was a good friend and managed to get award for best results from education minister. So not all bullies are bulies for fun. All it took was a change of surroundings (he and two his friends were from "bad" primary school, all of them changed).

[Juliate]

Most of the destructive/negative emotions and behaviours someone exhibits, comes from a lack of self-awareness.