Should we allow former criminals to reintegrate into society?

[Al Gorefiend]

For all of them.
If they can be properly rehabilitated, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to be reintegrated into normal society.

The risk of rehabilitation failing for violent offenders is too great a risk to take.

[UnluckyAmateur]

People seem to react very strangely about this stuff when it comes to athletes.

Ask people, "Should criminals get to have jobs?" and most will say "Yes!"

Ask people, "Should criminals get to play in the NFL?" and you'll get all sorts of, "Oh no, that's terrible, the NFL should keep them out!!"

I guess the US is still wrapped up in this idea that ball-players are still ideal role models for children? I dunno.

Because Sports >>>>>>>> everything else. Even the military.

(Sarcasm)

[Kalis]

Sure, but neither of those have anything to do with the general public having the opinion of, "Criminals shouldn't get to play in the NFL".

Why shouldn't people have an opinion on it? As fans they are stakeholders in the companies involved.

[lockedout]

For non violent crimes yes. For violent crimes, no.

So there is no paying your debt to society after committing a violent crime?

[Independent voter]

It absolutely can. That "prison culture" has emerged as a consequence of prison living conditions and policy. Again, you simply have to look at how other countries, like Norway, conduct their prisons, and don't see anything like the same problems.

500 murders in Chicago alone last year, mostly young men of military age. I don't think Norway has the same problems we do.

[Hyve]

What's the alternative? You've done your time and you're now forbidden to engage in society?

I agree that certain sentences need to be more severe, but I also believe that is more value in a rehabilitation focus. Re-offending (and overall crime) rates in nations that focus on rehabilitation are lower then those that issue severe punishments.

[darkwarrior42]

Companies are under no obiligation to hire someone that reflects badly on their public image (sports teams often have a very high profile public image), and nobody has a divine right to be employed in a career just because they are good at it.

On the other hand, we as a society have decided on what we feel to be appropriate punishments for specific crimes. If we continue to punish people for their crimes after they are released, not only does that smack of unjust punishment, what reason do those people have to not commit more crimes?

Beyond saying that they should be able to integrate, I think we need to make it clear that once you have served your time, you will be able to pick up your old life again. Not only will that help reduce recidivism rates, it might also improve life in the prisons (since now people might have a bit more to look forward to upon their release).


Alternatively, if the punishment is truly not severe enough, then just change the punishment to something that you feel is appropriate.



Remember also that there is a difference between vengeance and justice. This quote from of the OP's articles, for instance: "The message given is that men who commit such atrocious crimes will suffer only a small penance whilst the women they attack suffer for the rest of their lives." I do not question the depth of her suffering, but that's not what determines the appropriate punishment for a crime. Again, if the punishment in question is so lacking that it merits international outrage, then perhaps it should be re-evaluated... but punishing someone convicted of a crime after they've served their time is not justice, and it doesn't serve any higher good in society... it only feeds the desire for vengeance which, while satisfying, is not particularly useful.

[belfpala]

But someone on a football team? Why does anyone really care? /boggle

Considering I currently have a football (US) game on, and it involves a team in which one player's off field behavior has caused national news level fallout... yeah.

[Lord Havik]

Depends on the nature and severity of the crime.

Anything up to, but not including, grand larceny and assault should come with very light sentences directed mostly toward repairing/repaying/putting right the damages and shaming the perp. Repeated offenses should be met with much less leniency. Non-violent crimes, such as drug use, which do not include an element of theft or the damaging of another person or their property, should get a slap on the wrist and confiscation of the contraband should be punishment enough for first offenses.

Rehabilitation should be the focus of all crimes which involve some form of incontinence of character and those which do not severely harm (physically or financially) another person.

Murder, aggravated assault and large-scale white collar crimes such as embezzlement should get much longer sentences with assault and embezzlement terms based upon the damages amount in dollars. Murderers should be given death, always.

[Tuor]

If that guy has finished is time, then he should be realesed from jail. But being a sex offender, i'll say, keep him under survigillance for some time.

It absolutely can. That "prison culture" has emerged as a consequence of prison living conditions and policy. Again, you simply have to look at how other countries, like Norway, conduct their prisons, and don't see anything like the same problems.

That means the issue is institutional, not inherent to criminals. Criminals aren't criminals because they want to be. They're criminals because they don't have options, or they have mental issues, or something along those lines. They need help. Their being in prison in the first place is, for the most part, a demonstration of institutional failure in and of itself.

For crimes of passion, there may not be much you can do. For pretty much everything else, though, that's totally addressable, if you actually give enough of a shit to make the societal effort.

I 100% agree with your statment, i would dare saying even more, most of those guys that fall into crime come from difucult enviorements, if your neigbours are in crime, then the probability of someone in that enviorement to fall in to crime is higher. The problem is that whille we can reintegrate these people, once they arrive home they will again fall in the same kind of enviorement. Statisticly, a poor person has a higher chance to become problematic then someone from middle class or higher. People fall into crime, because they have no job, they had no proper education and so on.

But reintegrating people in these kind of enviorement is a really hard thing to do .

[Abbzow]

If the former criminal knows that (s)he can't reintergate or isn't seen as a normal individual in a society after doing his/hers time in prison, what can the criminal lose breaking the law once again?, nothin' because we still treat them as criminals after their jail time has ended.

[JohnBrown1917]

Regular peopel who steal, hit or EVEN kill a person should pay their time and then be free.

Those who kill, rape, etc a large number of people shouldn't be costing taxes in jail. They should be used in experimentation programs instead in order to become useful for society instead of a dangerous and expensive parasite.

You better watch out with all that edge, I almost cut myself.

[Lenonis]

So there is no paying your debt to society after committing a violent crime?

You aren't going to sucker me into a gun rights debate. Rights are not universal. They are revoked in certain circumstances to strike a balance between the rights of the individual with minimizing potential damage to society. There is no reason to give a weapon to someone who has shown they are willing to commit a violent crime, even if they served their time and promise to be good.

[Durantye]

Lol victim advocacy groups? That girl wasn't a victim she was drunk this guy didn't deserve the jail time in the first place so yes he should be allowed back into society.

[Tuor]

Murderers should be given death, always.

imagine this situation, you park you car, and you forget the parking brake, the car falls down the street, and meanwhille someone dies in that accident. Should you receive death sentence?

I'm against all kind of death penalties, the example above is just a simple example that explains that things aren't always that easy.

[lockedout]

Why shouldn't people have an opinion on it? As fans they are stakeholders in the companies involved.

NFL operates under a tax-exempt nonprofit organizations status.

[pateuvasiliu]

Former implies he is no longer a criminal, he has done his time and should be allowed to move on with his life.

/thread right here.

The people demanding heads to roll are what causes recidivism, really.

[Kalis]

On the other hand, we as a society have decided on what we feel to be appropriate punishments for specific crimes. If we continue to punish people for their crimes after they are released, not only does that smack of unjust punishment, what reason do those people have to not commit more crimes?

Beyond saying that they should be able to integrate, I think we need to make it clear that once you have served your time, you will be able to pick up your old life again. Not only will that help reduce recidivism rates, it might also improve life in the prisons (since now people might have a bit more to look forward to upon their release).


Alternatively, if the punishment is truly not severe enough, then just change the punishment to something that you feel is appropriate.



Remember also that there is a difference between vengeance and justice. This quote from of the OP's articles, for instance: "The message given is that men who commit such atrocious crimes will suffer only a small penance whilst the women they attack suffer for the rest of their lives." I do not question the depth of her suffering, but that's not what determines the appropriate punishment for a crime. Again, if the punishment in question is so lacking that it merits international outrage, then perhaps it should be re-evaluated... but punishing someone convicted of a crime after they've served their time is not justice, and it doesn't serve any higher good in society... it only feeds the desire for vengeance which, while satisfying, is not particularly useful.

People should be able to pick up their lives where they left off, but they shouldn't have any rights to automatically do so at a level they were on before.

In this particular case, I believe he should have the right to be employed by a football club, however it is up to the football clubs as to whether they take up that opportunity. If not, then he can look for work in other fields.

[Dezerte]

Yes, absolutely. I think it's paramount that there exists a hope for redemption, for a humane society to function.

[drwelfare]

If you do not allow someone to rejoin society then why keep them alive. Death seems kinder and lifetime incarceration or allowing someone to be released with excessive restrictions. A ex-gf accuses you of rape and you get convicted so for the rest of your life you have highly limited on options on where you can live spend free time and even apply for a job.