View Revisions of When Rehabilitation is Ruled Out
Key: Unchanged text, New text, Deleted text
p.
The "recent poll concerning capital punishment":http://www.omninerd.com/polls/The_Death_Penalty_for_the_USA_is has me thinking about the nature of the U.S. penal system.
[[Image:motorofficer.
jpg]]
p.
The threat of punishment is an integral part of U.S. society. On the roads, speeding, drinking, and running red lights all could result in fines or other penalties. These punishments exist to make the streets safer, but there are only semi-effective at doing so. There is wasted effort when following laws doesn't translate into safer streets (e.g., not running a red light when no one is around), and there is a false sense of security in only following what is typically enforced (a set that doesn't typically include ["laws against following too close":http://www.
, not running a red light when no one is around), and there is a false sense of security in only following what is enforced (a set that doesn't typically include ["laws against following too close":http://www.
trafficsafetyinfo.net/html/law.html#Following]--at least not in a way that would improve street safety).
p.
Obviously, there is more than government-threatened punishment involved. Some people actually drive safe _to be safe_. (Crazy, I know.) They realize that even though they won't get a ticket for driving two seconds behind the car in front of them on the freeway, they're significantly safer if they stay four seconds back.
p.
What's the difference? Education. Maturity. That sort of thing. Clearly, helping people achieve these would be useful in keeping the streets safe--so why do things like defensive driving only come into play on _minor_ offenses? Just when the education seems most necessary, the system reverts to punishment only (e.g., larger fines, revoked license, jail time). Is it that the government deems rehabilitation not possible? Or not practical? And if so, how can we be surprised when the same decisions is made concerning those who commit much more heinous crimes?
Is it that the government deems rehabilitation not possible? Or not practical? And if so, how can we be surprised when the same decision is made concerning those who commit much more heinous crimes?
The "recent poll concerning capital punishment":http://www.omninerd.com/polls/The_Death_Penalty_for_the_USA_is has me thinking about the nature of the U.S. penal system.
[[Image:motorofficer.
jpg]]
p.
The threat of punishment is an integral part of U.S. society. On the roads, speeding, drinking, and running red lights all could result in fines or other penalties. These punishments exist to make the streets safer, but there are only semi-effective at doing so. There is wasted effort when following laws doesn't translate into safer streets (e.g.
, not running a red light when no one is around), and there is a false sense of security in only following what is enforced (a set that doesn't typically include ["laws against following too close":http://www.
trafficsafetyinfo.net/html/law.html#Following]--at least not in a way that would improve street safety).
p.
Obviously, there is more than government-threatened punishment involved. Some people actually drive safe _to be safe_. (Crazy, I know.) They realize that even though they won't get a ticket for driving two seconds behind the car in front of them on the freeway, they're significantly safer if they stay four seconds back.
p.
What's the difference? Education. Maturity. That sort of thing. Clearly, helping people achieve these would be useful in keeping the streets safe--so why do things like defensive driving only come into play on _minor_ offenses? Just when the education seems most necessary, the system reverts to punishment only (e.g., larger fines, revoked license, jail time).
Is it that the government deems rehabilitation not possible? Or not practical? And if so, how can we be surprised when the same decision is made concerning those who commit much more heinous crimes?
