Strikes me as an exceptionally good use of taxpayer money. Prisons suck at rehabilitating people and thus just make things worse in the long run when you release the people. Anything you can do to blunt that negative effect is a win.
If you say prisons "suck at" rehabilitating people it suggests it's something they want to do but are not succeeding at. However, there are a lot of governors and prison officials who reject that notion as namby-pamby and see the institution of prisons as purely punitive or retributive with no real duty to rehabilitate offenders.
Sure, that is also a function of a prison. But unless we are speaking of the relatively rare deranged offender that you lock away for life, most people who land in prisons will be back in a few years.
The goal of prisons is to make the rest of society safer and a better environment so it is in our interest that they don't reoffend or don't learn how to be better criminals in prison. Ultimately that is also a food investment, because prisons cost money and people in prison are not contributing to society in good way. Everybody that does not return is money safed and improves the social climate. So investing at least a bit in order to make them better people is a no brainer.
But sadly there are many who still share the delusion that "tougher punishment will show them" and that "they will think twice if the punishment is harder". This is irrational and there is the data to show it.
I'd rather have the rare hardcore criminal treated to lightly than many troubled people that could be rehabilitated becoming more hardened criminals. Not because I am a good samatarian, but purely out of self interest.
>Prisons suck at rehabilitating people and thus just make things worse in the long run when you release the people.
I'm not involved in the system personally, but I do remember someone bringing up this sentiment in another thread, and a person responding with some stats showing that prison rehabilitation programs are way more effective than the average person thinks. There are some great people working in the sector that genuinely prevent criminals from returning to their old ways.
I guess it's just one of topics (like homelessness or immigration) where a lot of people have strong, differing opinions but reality says one thing clearly.
I've got another one. Many people think that privatized prisons and their incentives to profit are a major part of the reason we have such high incarceration rates in the US. However, only 8% of prisons in the US are privatized. Also, some states do not have any privatized prisons at all.
The biggest hurdle any society has to get over is whether people who commit crimes should be helped or punished. In Finland, prison is a summer camp, but recidivism is far lower. Even if the criminals "deserve" worse treatment, all a harsher, non-rehabilitative prison does is make another future victim of crime. Though of course, America's solution to recidivism is life sentences, which is basically just a life thrown away to be a permanent tax burden.
I suspect that in Finland it is not as much of a black mark either.
In America it is very difficult for ex convicts to get work, to support themselves or family. It can easily lead into the exact same pressures that caused the crime in the first place.
I also think most people wouldn't be super against rehabilitation if we had some way to know which offenders are genuinely beyond help. The people who truly will always harm others if they are free to.
I don't know the specific one they're referring to, but I'd imagine it would be similar to many other pets and prisoner programs [0]. The essence being that having an animal to take care of can be therapeutic and help teach valuable rehabilitation skills like responsibility.
Strikes me as an exceptionally good use of taxpayer money. Prisons suck at rehabilitating people and thus just make things worse in the long run when you release the people. Anything you can do to blunt that negative effect is a win.
edit: edited for a rough typo