it's probably worth noting that 'broken back' isn't a medical diagnosis. There are a whole range of injuries that could potentially fall into that category with damage to the spinal coord being the most serious. A fractured vertebra/pedicle or a popped disc can have complications including sciatica and variable paralysis of a nerve root which may fully resolve with time and or surgery.

In this case, you can see in the preview she is sitting on the side of the pool with her spine taking the whole weight of her torso/head - so i'm not sure what the 'reduces forces on her bones' means.
While this type of exercise offers fantastic rehabilitation I wouldn't want people to think that you could dump Christopher reeves in there and cure his ailments!

Aaaaand -- The Clash with their hit song "Know Your Rights":

This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang

Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well

Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Smush

Finally then I will read you your rights

You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you

Listen to this
Run

Again, you either ignore or are ignorant of the social needs of baby elephants....even though I've explained it repeatedly. Baby elephants NEED social interaction constantly, without it they usually die.
Often a herd will not accept a baby back. I'm not saying they shouldn't have tried, but it's not always possible. It's actually likely they did try and it was rejected, since they seemingly knew which herd it came from.
Keeping it outside as close to what nature would be like means someone or a few someone's need to live outside with it 24/7. Leaving it outside alone is almost certain death.

Again, this woman has spent her life rescuing and rehabilitating orphaned and injured animals successfully. I'm pretty sure she knows what that baby elephant needs more than you or I, and she's clearly the best option they have available. Yes, perhaps it's not the perfect solution to make it comfortable around people, but elephants are not wolves. Baby elephants are NEVER left alone in the wild. You can't just make them afraid of humans as infants, they need someone to care for them and they NEED interactions with others.

In this case, it seemed like there was a choice. Either take in this baby and treat is as a baby, with all the social needs a baby has, or don't treat it as a baby in need of constant contact and let it die. Neither is a perfect solution, but saving it is the preferable one. Perhaps it won't be able to be re-introduced to the wild because of how it's being raised...that's better than just letting it die IMO, which I see as the only alternative to her care.

Um...no....I don't see that.
First, what would your alternative be, knowing that baby elephants NEED a family structure to thrive, and often just die when they don't have one? Would you just put it in a cage with no contact and just hope it survives? Bad idea.
I see she is doing this because baby elephants need this interaction from a 'family' unit, or they either wither and die or survive, but become rouges that have never known herd life in any way and are problem elephants that get shot.
If it were all about herself at the animals expense, why are the other less social animals not brought onto the porch? I'll answer, because they don't need to be.
Perhaps before calling out the behavior of those who's life has been spent successfully rescuing, rehabilitating, and reintroducing to the wild abandoned and injured animals you should do a little research on what those animals require?

@ChaosEngine --

I understand and largely agree with what you are saying, but "enforced solitude and inactivity" vs "nicest cage" is a false dichotomy in the same way my comment was. I wasn't saying that the ideal rehabilitation solutions are either "rape 'n shiv" or "isolation", just that if those *were* the only two options available to me, I think I'd personally opt for isolation.

I 100% agree that a better environment and being treated with some dignity and respect is infinitely more likely to actually rehabilitate someone than focusing on the punishment aspect. On the other hand, some limitations on the "nicest cage" approach are likely necessary. Maybe violent people need to be kept in relative isolation until they can prove that they are able to move beyond that, etc.

And I think that at some point, there has to be a tipping point in the cost-benefit analysis of "attempt to rehabilitate this person into being a functional member of society" vs "make certain that this person is physically prevented from causing any further damage to society". Those are extreme cases, but I think that in those cases "physically prevented from causing damage" might reasonably be applied through either "locked in isolation with only basic needs (food, water) provided for for the rest of their life" or the death penalty. And in most cases, I think that if it has really come to the point of those, a quick and hopefully painless death is probably the less cruel and unusual option...

Saying you must choose between getting shivved/raped and being isolated is a false dichotomy.

Obviously, the US prison system is awful (doubly so since it seems almost designed to discourage rehabilitation). That doesn't mean that the Japanese system is good, only less bad.

On a personal level, I completely understand the desire to punish criminals for their crimes. If someone wronged me, I would want them to suffer for it.

But as a society, we need to move past that. Maybe prison SHOULD be a health spa. If it resulted in lower recidivism, wouldn't that be worth it? And I don't think it would encourage crime. Even the nicest cage is still a cage.

But at a very basic level, exercise and social interaction are necessary for humans to function normally. Do you have any idea what enforced solitude and inactivity do to people? How can you be expected to be a productive member of society after years of that?

This is really good. Anything that humanizes criminals, instead of treating them like filth or invisible ghosts is a good thing, and a step in the right direction towards rehabilitation.

I am curious about something though. I wonder if creating this environment of humor and fun has some impact on violence between inmates in the jail where he performed (even if temporary).

It always confuses me how, as a society, we seem to think that prison is for punishment, and rehabilitation is now 100% the job of the convict, then we act like they have not yet 'paid their debt to society' and should continue to be shunned and punished when they get out of prison. We need to look at other cultures that treat people differently, and actually look at WHY they offended in the first place, and try to remedy those issues during incarceration and make them proper, productive citizens. Our system of punish, punish more, then add some permanent punishments, all while expecting the offenders to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' (bootstraps that were taken from them in prison) and, while enduring punishment, better themselves is just insane. They'll never be the people we want them to be if we keep putting obstacles in their way.

The yt description also says they've named him Will, and that he would be unsuitable for rehabilitation to the wild, as he was born in captivity in Brazil, but they want him to lead a life with as much dignity as possible from here on in.

This topic tears me.
I have verifiable evidence than Marijuana is both addictive and harmful, in a lasting sense, if abused.
At the same time, no one should dictate what plants others can eat.
If you have the greed, resources, and half a brain, setting up a marijuana rehabilitation center is going to be the next most profitable business to growing the plant itself.

@Jerykk
i cant make heads nor tails what you are trying to convey.
are you making an argument for harsher prisons?
or an assertion that if they were less harsh people would WANT to go to prison?
that recidivism is irrelevant so we should just execute prisoners?

i agree that poverty leads to desperation which can lead to criminal activity.there is plenty of statistics to back that up,though interestingly those numbers are dropping in regards to poverty=crime.

as for your deterrence argument.
yeah..no.the numbers obviously dont add up.
right now there are more american citizens incarcerated than the soviet gulags of the 80's.in fact,america incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation in the world.

americas prison population=2.4 million..and rising.

which leads me to my next point.
what is the purpose of prison?
well,it should be to remove those violent elements from society and for the offenders who are non-violent a way to pay a debt to the society they betrayed (fill in the offense here ____).

when their time has been served (paid) then they are free to rejoin society and reintegrate themselves back into society.

but what if that system of punishment strips you of all dignity and humanity?treats you like an abandoned dog at the local animal shelter?physically beaten and spiritually shattered,just HOW to you rejoin normal society?

what then?
do you blame the inmate who was thrown into a inhumane system?or maybe..juuuuust maybe..it may be the SYSTEM which is the blame.

let us look at some stats shall we?
the private prison industry is the 9th largest lobbiest in the country.who lobby for stricter sentencing,zero tolerance and mandatory jail time.a new trend in this area is now regarding teens AND pre-teens.they also make contracts with the local government to have a certain % occupancy.(meaning that even if those beds are not filled,the company STILL gets paid).

and lets not forget those kick backs to the local judges.already 25 judges this year got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

the idea that prison is a deterrence has been debunked.
there are over 5000 federal laws NOT including state and local.so at any given time,in any given day,YOU have perpetrated a federal crime.

the idea the prison is for rehabilitation is utter bullshit,another liberal feel-good "look at the good we are doing" trope.

prison is a business.
based on the mafia principle.
it is about making the poor a commodity and exploiting their lack of resources to fight back.
recidivism?
thats just repeat customers.american prisons care zippo about recidivism.

again i reference the milgram experiment.
treat people like animals and they will soon behave like animals.
treat them with humanity and dignity and the outcome is far more positive for a society as a whole..we ALL benefit.

but the private prisons dont want that..it means less profit for them.

the norden is doing it right and the results are impressive.

@lucky760
um...what?
inmates are wild animals?

i guess i could get on board with your opinion if the parameters were exclusively directed toward extremely violent psycho/sociopaths.

otherwise your comment makes no sense.
2.4 million inmates in american prisons.the majority for non-violent offenses (think pot smokers),70% are non-white and to singularly lump them all as somehow being "wild animals" unworthy of participating in normal society,reveals a serious lack of understanding.

the american penal system dehumanizes and has zippo to do with rehabilitation OR corrections.
which is why i referenced the milgram experiment.

treat someone with humanity,even if they are paying a debt to society,and the results will always be a better outcome than what we do to prisoners here in the states.

the american penal system is a racket,a business.it commodifies the poor and those not deemed "of value" and its a travesty.something we should all be ashamed of,not celebrating.

USA is about punishment. Trouble with some small country: bomb it. Trouble with a larger country: economic sanctions. Trouble with crime: destroy their lives.

Nordic countries: rehabilitate so they can have a better lives and return to the tax paying, well behave folks. If it is countries, talk. Negotiate. (of course that last one is a bit different, nordic countries are VERY small so we can't just use force.) But the biggest difference is the need to punish, to make others suffer. This echoes all the way thru USA model: lose your house, fuck you, you are on your own. Get sick, lose your job end up stealing, fuck you, you made that choice.

I know criminals, hell, i am one. Prisoners do not behave badly if you keep them sane. That means giving them something meaningful to do, trust them, give them decent living. Prisons STILL frighten people. My upcoming two months sentence, damn, i haven't slept well in ages. I have done everything i could to reduce the sentence, to stay one more day out here. And i know that the place i will go is like a summer camp. Camp that i can not leave.

Guess which one works? I do have my own business in the works, i work everyday, i study, educate myself and i have full knowledge that once those 68 days are over, i can return back to regular life and continue my healthy plans (and if you wonder what i did, i am homegrower, never have hit anyone in my life, non-violent offender. My only crime is my love for weed, a substance that is going soon to be legal) I know a lot of guys that have been in prison, most of them come out better than they went in. Yes, we do have repeat offenders. That is very small percentage comparing to USA. If punishment would work, if the deterrent of longer sentences worked, there wouldn't be revolving doors. We know that there will always be small minority that will end up in prison, no matter if the punishment would be capital. Always. You have thieves in countries that chop your hands off. But if we treat instead punish, the ones that have a chance for good life, take it...

I do understand that the purpose of Godwin's law is to reduce the worst kinds of hyperbole, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do.

Whatever you think about Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians, referring to it as extermination only shows that you haven't taken the time to understand anything about the current conflict and you are just reacting emotionally to the terrible horror of war. Extermination is the total elimination of a certain population by killing, and such an action is so far beyond the state of oppression we see in Gaza today that I just can't take your comparison seriously.

The only way you bother to support these outlandish statements is by telling me that death is death - no matter what the cause - as if that mindless tautology is enough to render two wildly different sets of circumstances and tactics equivalent.

Should we also call all murders murders and not bother to make distinctions between first degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter, etc? Should we treat the serial killer the same as the drunken brawler who hit someone too hard in a bar fight?

Of course not. As thinking people we analyze factors such as intent, quantity, severity, remorse, and perhaps most importantly, we consider what measures can possibly be taken to correct the underlying cause. All of these elements are wildly different in the different degrees of murders, and having an honest grasp of these differences helps us understand how we as a society should react to each degree, both in terms of punishment and rehabilitation.

To similar ends, it is very important that we consider analogous distinctions in the different degrees of atrocities between nations or ethnic groups. The fact that it is obvious that I would much rather be in Gaza today than a concentration camp in 1943 is very much so relevant to this sort of analysis. The fact that there is no Israeli intent to exterminate the Palestinians is also relevant.

But if you want to leave the depth of your understanding at "dead is dead" then I guess that's your choice.

@RedSky

1) I never said that wasn't any research showing that rehabilitation can reduce recidivism. I said there's not enough research. The cultural and economic situation of a small European country isn't quite analogous to the current state of the U.S. Also, how does the death penalty not eliminate recidivism entirely? You can't commit crimes if you're dead. Thus, guaranteed results.

2) So by "first-world," you're basically talking about Europe. Does Greenland qualify? They have a murder rate of 19.4. I'll concede that the U.S. has a higher murder rate than Europe. Is that due solely to how we deal with criminals? Possibly, but I doubt it. It certainly doesn't prove that increasing surveillance, enforcement and punishment wouldn't reduce crime rates.

3) Like I said before, most criminals are fully aware of the severity of their crimes. The problem is that they think they can get away with it. Harsher penalties mean nothing without the enforcement to back them, which is why I suggested increasing surveillance and enforcement in addition to harsher penalties. You need both in order to provide an effective deterrent.

4) If you can provide more data than Scandinavia's recidivism rates, I'll gladly accept that rehabilitation can work in the U.S. But even then, rehabilitation will never reduce recidivism completely whereas death would. Is it realistic to expect the U.S. government to enact the death penalty for all crimes? No, not at all. It's unrealistic to expect them to enforce breeding restrictions too. That doesn't change the fact these things would reduce crime rates. If we're stuck on realism, the likelihood of the government ever adopting a rehabilitation policy like in Norway's is pretty low.

5) One could just as easily argue that crime in Venezuela is a result of drug trafficking dominating the country, resulting in corrupt police and politicians that let the cartels do whatever they want. You exclude third-world countries because they undermine your argument. Third-world countries have a lot of poverty, yes, and nobody is going to deny the correlation between poverty and crime. However, they also suffer from a distinct lack of police surveillance and enforcement, either because the police are corrupt or there simply aren't enough to sufficiently enforce the law in all areas.