Do you believe convicted criminals can be rehabilitated?

[Blurrywateryeye]

I’m talking about anyone who has been convicted of a serious crime. Do you think they can be truly rehabilitated? There have been many examples where upon release they have continued to break the law and have been re-sentenced Jon Venables for example and others that have committed even more heinous crimes, Ted Bundy, Reginald McFadden, Arthur Shawcross, just to name a few. However, there are some that have turned their life around.

Others like in the case of Baby Ps mother, have been released and recalled due to license breaches but were deemed low risk despite being involved in child murder. Do we need harsher sentencing or when someone has served their time should they be free to live their life?

Societies with low reoffending rates do a lot of work to help offenders - education, including emotional, financial , basic maths and English, how to get a job that pays , rather than banging them up where the only thing they can do is form networks of people who also only know a criminal life and mentality

but it’s expensive

not everyone can be rehabilitated but many could given the right supoort

and with the right suport earlier in life , and with their families , offending rates could be reduced

I’m talking about serious crime, not petty shoplifting. It’s not just people poor uneducated people that commit crimes, plenty of middle class and educated rich people to do.

No

I agree with @midgetastic . I don't think that anything she says fails to apply to serious crimes, or to well-off or educated people.

We make little to no effort to rehabilitate people in many UK prisons, so naturally reoffending rates are high. But there are examples of people who have committed murder and other serious crimes and reformed themselves.

Some types of offence are less amenable to rehabilitation, eg sexual offences and any form of theft that is generated by drug addiction, but I don't imagine that most offenders are beyond all hope of rehabilitation.

No. Pitchfork hadn’t
been out long before having to be recalled

Educated people will not need to learn basic maths and English.

I would imagine it depends on the motivation to commit serious crime. If the offender has ASPD (what used to be described as psychopath) then perhaps rehabilitation is not going to work in the majority of cases.
If the crime was due to a temporary breakdown, then perhaps yes.

Yes

Sadly, the prison system that we currently have makes it very difficult for offenders to be rehabilitated. Prisons are overcrowded, there is little to no support for offenders when they are released so many just continue to commit crimes again.
If we as a society want to reduce crime, we need to acknowledge that more needs to be done than locking offenders up for years and expecting them to learn from that.

You mention Jon Venables, apparently Robert Thompson has never reoffended and lives a law abiding life.

At the end of it all though, it comes down to personal choice. Some people get no help but turn their lives around on their own. Some others get every bit of help you could get but it makes no difference.

As a society, I think we want to believe in rehabilitation. We want to feel we can do "something" to prevent serious crime, to make people feel remorse for what they've done. But ultimately I'm not sure it makes a major difference and I worked in the field for decades. People have to want to change. If they have support it can make it easier for them but it can't make someone change that doesn't want to.

what is It that you actually want here OP?

In simplest terms, you cannot have the prison regimen of Daily Mail ‘lore and low reoffending rates. The most cost effective is to spend money on supporting impoverished children, then supporting prisoners to fight addiction, and attain social + job skills and only the last few do you need to ‘throw away the key’.

Yes, vengeance feels nice at the time, but for society as a whole it’s a bad idea.

Yes

I would agree with this, some people are just prone to criminality and don’t actually feel bad about it. No amount of rehabilitation will help some, you have to want to live a crime free life for that and feel genuine remorse.

I am very sceptical that any sex offender can be rehabilitated tbh.

Up to the criminal. Maybe it’s genetic and some can’t be.

Prison costs a fortune and rehabilitation expenses are insanely high on top.

I think it’s key to remember that the victims, not the crims, have to be top priority in a civilised society.

Judges and prison managers say ‘prison doesn’t work’.

Works fine for the public.

I think it's truly dependant on each case and the type of help offered.

This post sums it up well.

Do we choose an evidence based approach to reducing re-offending or not?

Yes. Look at countries with low rates of reopening. We do rehabilitation badly here because everything is on the cheap and because Daily Mail frothers only care about punishment. If we did prevention better (deal with poverty, early support for SEN, good mental health and pastoral support) our prison population would be much smaller. If we dealt with addiction better, provided psychological interventions and offered proper post release support, we wouldn't see people bouncing in and out of jail. But that would mean investing in the lives of people that the UK loves to hate.

Depends on the case and the person.

agree with @midgetastic

I agree with this. Maybe certain cases of manslaughter where death was caused by self defence or other pressing factors such as long term abuse etc, or an argument that got out of control. However things like sexual violence or CSA, that are more to do with the person’s wiring is probably very unlikely to be changed.

'Redmeption' by Jon McAvoy is a brilliant book about his rehabilitation from being a notorious armed robber to sporting mentor - well worth a read and shows that rehabilitation is possible in certain cases.

The thing is most criminals don’t start out with a serious crime. Even serial killers tend to have a history of convictions for lesser crimes. I think criminals can be rehabilitated if the work is done at the beginning of their criminal career. But as Pp said, it costs more to do that that just lock them up.

But I wonder if not doing that costs more in the long term. Prisoners leave prison with far more knowledge about successfully committing crimes and sometimes with addictions they didn’t have when they went in. Where poverty has led them to crime, unless they are given the training and/ir education to raise themselves above poverty they are almost certain to reoffend, especially as jobs are harder to get once they have a record.

I also wonder if the practice of not rehabilitating young and first time offenders is not based solely on costs. I think there’s an underlying feeling that they shouldn’t access education, training and therapy because they are there to be punished. I think that is shortsighted.

Some can, I think non violent offenders would find it easier than violent ones. I don’t think sex offenders can be rehabilitated at all.

I don't believe paedophiles or domestic abusers can be rehabilitated. However, I don't think the prison system works and we need a lot of investment to stop repeat offending. I don't think the vast majority of women should be in prison.

Just incredible that anyone believed a man like that could be rehabilitated or that any sentence other than life without parole would be appropriate.