| I don't think there's anything wrong with starting a debate. Rehabilitation is one of those code words that polls well, but I am skeptical it exists. In reality it usually just means 'addiction treatment' (which seldom works) and there isnt really a good analogy for crimes that are not drug related. Just for my own clarity, what exactly constitues rehabilitation for eg. someone who embezzles? The second issue is that it seems to focus on preventing additional crime, but punishment is about preventing crime before it happens. Just proving 'I would never do it again' isn't really the point, we want to prevent crimes from ever happening. Your theory seems to be that most people are inherently good and wouldn't do crime just because if their nature. I think that is fundamentally wrong, and I can prove it. All you need to do is examine situations in which people were suddenly put in situations where they knew they were unlikely to receive punishment: and crime explodes. There were millions of rapes commited by soldiers against German women during the occupation following world war 2. My guess is most of the perpetrators never raped again--they went home and were otherwise normal citizens. Had they not been given the opportunity to get away with it, they would not have done it. I sort if see this akin to the Milgram experiment. You probably think you wouldn't shock the man--and maybe you wouldn't--but our studies suggest most people would. |
But I don't think your example about rape in occupied Germany is a great example. The citizens of the Soviet Union suffered greatly, and it is estimated that about 26 million of them died during WW2. I have no doubt that the minds of those soldiers were filled with thoughts of rage and revenge, and probably felt that the perpetrators of the war somehow deserved it.