[neeee]

>If someone commits three consecutive rapes...well, who would complain about locking him up forever?

I would. The primary purpose of prisons should be rehabilitation. Giving life sentences doesn't take into account that people can change.

[clarky07]

So what is a reasonable punishment for a serial rapist? Seems to me that no one should get the chance to be convicted of rape 3 times. They should have been locked up before that 3rd one happened. I might, might let you out at some point after 1. After 2, screw you. You clearly didn't learn and you are a danger to society.

[eropple]

> So what is a reasonable punishment for a serial rapist?

Forced placement in a facility for treating mental illness until his doctors determine he is sufficiently well to be reintegrated into society, followed by a public-service program as societal (note: not personal) recompense for his actions. That would be after the first time, though, not the third. Because this person needs help and is plainly not getting it--and he will never get help in an American prison.

But because enough people are more interested in vengeance than justice--and your posts pretty firmly demonstrate that you're in that camp--it will never, ever happen.

[clarky07]

You are suggesting that everyone who has ever committed rape is mentally ill. That seems like a stretch to me. I'd suggest there are a lot of people that are simply bad people who like to have forceful sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with them. I also don't think all murderers are mentally ill. Some people just have a motive and are willing to cross a line.

I'm not interested in vengeance, and nothing about my post suggested I am. I don't want people who are a danger to society to continue to be a danger to society. If I was one of the people interested in vengeance, I'd have said something like they should get raped repeatedly with a broom in prison. I didn't, I just said they should be locked up. Nothing vengeful about that at all. I just want them to not be near my loved ones.

[eropple]

Being "willing to cross a line" is mental illness. It's the fucking definition of antisocial personality disorder. Get them the help they need, train them to be productive members of society (like we should for everyone), and guess what? The problem goes away. You will certainly have an incurable segment of the population who, after actually being treated by professionals and educated, cannot integrate with society--but it's not going to be a third of the population of black males being locked away for at least part of their lives and being primed for further criminality by their experiences in prison.

Putting someone in a concrete box where one's safety is utterly left up to chance is nothing but vengeful and retaliatory. It is designed to inflict misery and nothing else. It saddens me that this obvious fact escapes so many of my fellow Americans but I've become resigned to the fact that those of us with privilege are just kind of shitty human beings when it comes to anybody unlike us.

[unethical_ban]

Certain crimes are deemed inexcusable. Murder someone because they're black: Horrible. Steal a wallet because you have an addiction: forgivable. Rape someone after being convicted and released from two prior rapes: Inexcusable.

Not every "mentally ill" person is curable, nor can every mentally ill person be trusted at an attempt for re-integration with society.

Funny how you're defending the right of serial rapists to seek help and therapy while you "resign yourself" to the fact that people who don't "get it" are shitty humans.

[PeterisP]

Being "willing to cross a line" by itself is not mental illness.

A huge part of our crimes are things that are hurtful to society and unfair, but completely natural for dominant primates to do to other primates in their group - i.e., take their stuff for own benefit, or violently attack a competitor. Doing evil stuff is evil, but most evil stuff isn't mentally abnormal, and isn't really curable.

Also, crimes such as 'stealing to feed your family' do cross the line, but are neither sign of mental ilness or even evil. Sure, it hurts others as well - but it is a completely sane decision to prioritize suffering of you and your family over wealth of others; if there is a lack of proper social support and a real necessity, a mentally normal person can easily be stealing 365 days a year.

[clarky07]

Are you suggesting that there should be no prisons at all, and just mental hospitals?

what do we do with "You will certainly have an incurable segment of the population who, after actually being treated by professionals and educated, cannot integrate with society"?

Also, what do we do with those that are extremely violent and prone to escape? It seems reasonable that a tougher layer of security is warranted in some cases.

>"Putting someone in a concrete box where one's safety is utterly left up to chance is nothing but vengeful and retaliatory."

First, I'm not convinced that our prison system is quite as bad as that statement. It seems a bit of hyperbole to me. I'd agree that it certainly isn't great, but perhaps not quite that bad.

Also, it seems that we don't really have to disagree about anything, you are just reading too much into what I've said. I'm in favor of trying to rehabilitate people, and I'm also in favor of improving our prisons. I'd classify someone convicted of rape several times as "an incurable segment of the population who, after actually being treated by professionals and educated, cannot integrate with society."

I also think there are way too many people in prison in general, specifically in relation to the absurd war on drugs. I suspect we agree on that.

>It is designed to inflict misery and nothing else.

I think it is designed as punishment for crime. That mostly seems reasonable. I think while we're at it, we should work to try and rehabilitate them better than we do, but no need to put them in a penthouse suite. Part of it is deterrence. All crime is not mental illness. I promise you that. Much of it is committed by highly intelligent people who just didn't expect to get caught. Much of it is committed by not very intelligent people who just didn't expect to get caught.

[SolarNet]

I think he is suggesting something like this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-pri...

Where serious crimes like rape and murder (but not manslaughter) still come with heavy sentences (like 15-25 years) but in a place where you can be rehabilitated so when you get out it doesn't come to a second strike. (Also, the fact that rapists often get sentences under 10 years in this country is pretty ridiculous, and is what allows them to actually get around to committing the crime 3 times. (15 year sentences 3 times starting at age 15 would make you 60. How are people committing 3 rapes in the first place?)

Basically I'm fine with the 3 strike laws as long as we fix the root problems in the first place. (And also fix the definition of felony to not include non-violent, non-serious crimes).

[eftpotrm]

I'm not a criminologist but my understanding is that murder is almost always a personal crime of passion rather than a general psychopathy, and that the repeat offending rates in countries which allow murderers back out of prison (such as mine) is tiny. So while I understand the high-tariff sentence for murder, they're not really a benchmark offender category for social transgression and rehabilitation because they (usually) lack the reoffending tendency that requires rehabilitating.

[jakejake]

Agreed. The death penalty is much better in that situation.