I found our last symposium very interesting because it brought up a very controversial topic of conversation: how criminals should be dealt with once convicted. I have always been in support of rehabilitation because I do not see the point of criminals sitting in jail for an extended period of time and then being released. Around 70% of males released from prison will be arrested again and 50% will be convicted again within three years of being released(http://www.jstor.org/pss/30036962). Obviously, the prison system is not effective because many convicts continue the same behavior once they are free again. I agree the retribution is important because victims are victims. The perpetrator did something to them that they did not deserve, so something needs to happen so that justice is restored for them. However, this is a hard thing to accomplish sometimes. If someone has money stolen, it should be returned to him or her. It is a lot more difficult when dealing with things like damaged items that cannot be replaced or when people are assaulted and raped. You cannot undo something like that. That is why I think that retribution does not always work. Many crimes cannot be fixed that way. Not all victims feel that things are even again when someone spends time in jail. The prisoners’ freedom is taken away, but for some people, jail is a part of life for them, and they do not learn anything from it.
That is why rehabilitation needs to be an important aspect of criminal treatment. If we want people to enter the real world and not commit crimes again, something needs to change. If we know why people committed crimes, it is much easier to figure out what kind of help they need. It will not always work, but it is worth trying. The money spent implementing a system like this would be expensive but it would save money in the long run because there will not be as many people in prison, which is very costly.
I think that Plato and Aristotle would agree that both methods would be affective. Obviously Aristotle would support the retribution aspect to restore justice, but I think he would see value in rehabilitation as well. For people to maintain justice in society, they need to understand how to be virtuous. Being virtuous means finding the Golden Mean. Plato would agree with rehabilitation as well because criminals do not always have balanced souls; one part is overruling the others. A society is made up of the individuals, so for a society to be harmonious, the people need to be in balance. He thinks that once a soul is harmonious, the person will be able to play his or her role in society and therefore the society will be just. I think that he would also agree with the retribution part because the rulers are meant to restore justice and make sure people stay in line. A way they could go about doing this is through retribution.
Do you think that our society would be a better place if we implemented both of these tactics? Do you think that Aristotle and Plato would agree that both methods would be the most effective together?
I also think that both retribution and rehabilitation are important. Retribution helps to restore balance to the society and rehabilitation helps to restore balance to the individual. Both are important in rectifying an unjust situation and benefitting everyone involved. One alone cannot bring about the best results. With only retribution, the offender does not receive the help s/he needs to become a just person and is more likely to continue to do wrongs. With only rehabilitation, the victim does not receive any compensation for his/her loss or suffering. In order to truly restore justice both retribution and rehabilitation need to be enacted.
ReplyDelete