Retribution or rehabilitation?
Ian | 16 June, 2010 | 13:14I think I have the wrong idea about the point of the modern judicial system.
I was under the impression that sentencing a convict was at least in part to help rehabilitate them and make them see the “error of their ways.” A part was always retributive punishment, but there was supposed to be some focus on actually returning that prisoner to society as a contributing member.
Prisoners are still human beings, and they have rights.
Well, it turns out that even the most progressive parties out there want to take some steps to take any hope for forgiveness out of our system and ensure that it remains focussed on good old “eye-for-an-eye” scriptural punishments (while forgetting the contradictory turn the other cheek passages).
Perhaps it’s just all politics though. No party really wants to be known as supporting murderers and child molesters. Who really wants to be “soft” on crime?
Nevertheless, my support goes to the John Howard Society in Manitoba on this case. Their arguments are rational and rights-based.
“Someone has to point out that it does not serve public safety to make it harder for people to reintegrate after a prison sentence,” said [John Howard Society executive director] John Hutton.
…
Hutton offered statistics from the National Parole Board showing out of 400,000 pardons granted in the last 40 years, only 4,000 have been revoked after an offender committed another crime.
Recent Comments