This system works fine for Norway and serves as a model for a humane system of rehabilitation/education/reintegration-This would work as a model for any modern civilized society given a similar petri dish.

Any transition to something similar in the U.S. would take a few generations and maybe something as simple as re-indoctrination of her population through eliminating television and consumer advertising and re-claiming education as a system of human potential and critical thinking rather than a mind-numbing-and-dumbing of young minds and a platform for the roboticism of humanity.

Hardly any violent crime in Canada and this is due mainly to the lack of 24/7 violence and disinformation being pumped-into homes through the cathode-ray nipple....The only wet-nurse that could create a cripple!

Developmental-disability and criminals running the machine has created the big business of "criminal" recidivism in America-The real criminals are in charge of the prisons system apparatus-

For these pieces of human garbage, there should be no-quarter and televised trials should broadcast worldwide for about five solid years should they ever be brought to justice...

The U.S. systems' broken and beyond redemption.

So, whatever the crime - a mass murdering, pedophile, rapist - he/she will get a maximum 21 years and be let back into the community? And the warden says; "When released, what sort of person do you want as a neighbour, an angry person, or one that has been rehabilitated?" No, what people want is justice and a punishment that fits the crime. Someone capable of bestial acts, showing no mercy for the victims, does not deserve rehabilitation. This place actually rewards criminality. "Come on in. We provide food, entertainment, training and even pretty guards. After all, your rights are more important than your victims."

Tyson had a one-man show on Broadway called "Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth". Not a musical connection, but a Broadway connection.

And I too am pretty squicked out by the showbiz rehabilitation of this rapist. Then again, at least Tyson served his time. I'm much more squicked out by Hollywood's lionization of Roman Polanski.

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

We already give women (and men) control over their reproductive habits. It's pretty apparent that a large portion of these men and women don't deserve that control, since they reproduce without any thought or consideration to their impact on the rest of society. If everyone were mature and responsible, there would be no such thing as abusive or negligent parents. Parenthood should be a privilege, not a right. As an aside, in 2010 the divorce rate in the U.S. was over 50%. If 50% of married couples aren't even mature or responsible enough to sustain a marriage, how can these people be expected to raise mature and responsible children? Hell, how many of those couples had kids before they divorced? You ask me to have faith in people but the numbers really don't give me any reason to.

As for these young men, I'm guessing they had lousy parents who never taught them to respect other people or the law. That's probably why they raped a girl, peed on her unconscious body and took pictures of it all. If they hadn't been caught, do you really think they would have regretted their actions and turned themselves in? No, they would have just continued life as usual, grown up, had kids and raised them with the same twisted values. It's a vicious cycle that exists because we have no regulation over reproduction. Instead of wasting taxpayer money trying to rehabilitate them (and very likely fail; the vast majority of sexual predators can't break their habits), why not just end the cycle right then and there? Humanity is hardly on the verge on extinction, so getting rid of the trash and cleaning up the gene pool would only help make life better for future generations.

All that said, you're right that issues like poverty, lack of education, etc, are all relevant here. But would those still be issues if everyone were raised to be contributing members of society, as opposed to worthless parasites that exist solely for the sake of existing? There are a finite number of jobs and classrooms out there. There aren't enough to accommodate every living person. That's why we need population control. If you extend yourself beyond your own means by having kids you can't afford to feed or send to school, you're just making the problem worse.

Are some of you really that blind? Rehabilitation don't work criminals are hard coded? Then why does it work on other countries then? Supporting death penalty? Who the hell gives you right to take a life, just like the murderer did to their victims?

Sentences are way too harsh in the USA, there are countless studies proving that longer and harsher penalties does nothing to curb crime. There are nations that hand out death penalties for petty crimes and still there are people who commit those crimes every year. If death penalty would work, there would be no murders. Countries with shorter sentences have fewer repeating offenders, how is that possible in your world where criminals are animals who can not change their ways.

I guess those who want death penalty and ridiculously long sentences have something sadistic in their personality. YOU MUST SUFFER SO I FEEL GOOD. Same goes for inequality supporters, same principle, other must suffer to make me feel good.

How many shootouts with cops could we avoid when there is still hope in the criminals mind that the mistake they made won't cost them their lives.

On the story, this is more and more common, specially in the States but happens all over the world. Victims are on secondary focus, they aren't as interesting as perpetrators: Why? Victims have their story told before the news, it happened already, they are weak = prey. The assailants, their story has just begun, they are strong = predator.

When was torture last sanctioned by the state? The dark ages? Of course violent crime was higher in the dark ages. It was pretty difficult to enforce the law back then due to the lack of cars, satellites, computers, security cameras, guns, etc, not to mention that laws varied greatly depending on which part of the land you lived in and what lords you served under. Does Pinker's book have any contemporary examples that support your position?

In any case, regardless of whether you favor punishment or rehabilitation, the real solution is to address the root of the problem: lousy upbringings. Anyone can have children, no matter how qualified they are. They can have a criminal record, a history of mental illness and be unemploymed and still have as many kids as they want. It's ridiculous and the reason why so many children grow up to be criminals. We need to have strictly enforced regulation of reproduction. Parents should have to go through a thorough testing process and meet certain requirements (like having enough money to actually support a family) before being allowed to have kids. If a woman walks into a hospital with an unlicensed pregnancy, both she and the father should be arrested and executed without trial. Legal births would be recorded in an international database, which employers and government workers would reference during any hiring, licensing or authorization process. Essentially, illegal children would have no chance of ever becoming a part of regular society, forcing them to the outskirts and slums. This would make it easier to focus raids and clear out the most prominent concentrations of criminals.

This may sound dystopian but it's really the only way to fix the root of the problem. You will never be able to make people better if you let them be raised under lousy conditions. Morality is learned, not innate. If we want everyone to follow the same rules, they need to be taught to respect them. If the parents don't, why would the children?

You can recover from being raped. You can't recover from being murdered. While rape is certainly traumatic and can cause physical harm, it's still nowhere close to being dead.

As for rehabilitation's efficacy, how many criminals are repeat offenders? If rehabilitation worked, there would be no such thing as a repeat offender.

You are correct, though, in regards to our current implementation of the death penalty being ineffective. For one, the death penalty is very rarely handed out. You stand a much better chance of getting a life sentence. Even if you do get the death penalty, you'll likely sit on death row for years before being executed. In fact, this is often a benefit to prisoners, as they are separated from the rest and don't have to worry about being raped or beaten. Free food, free room, no threats from other prisoners and you don't have to worry about anything because you already know you're going to die. And when you are finally executed, it is done in the most humane (and unnecessarily elaborate and expensive) way possible. If you're a sociopath who has accepted or even embraced your own death, this is hardly the worse way to go.

The death penalty isn't the ultimate penalty, either. There are some people who don't care about living and therefore don't care about dying. To them, death means nothing. However, being forced to live a life of pain and suffering isn't appealing to anyone, no matter how apathetic they may be. If the penalty for any crime was to have your arms, legs and eyes removed, be hooked up to the necessary IVs to survive and then forced to endure daily torture for the rest of your life, I guarantee crime rates would drop substantially. Fear is an incredibly effective tool at keeping people in check. It's when people stop being scared of punishment that rules start being broken.

Yeah, rape is worse than murder. Murder is sometimes, if not justifiable, at least understandable.

And I'd argue that rehabilitation works better than deterrence.
The ultimate deterrent is the death penalty and that has been shown time and again to be ineffective.

You think rape is worse than murder..? I'm not condoning rape or anything but there are worse crimes out there (like murder).

Anyway, rehabilitation simply doesn't work for the vast majority of criminals. Most were born and raised in poor conditions with negligent and/or abusive parents. They've been hard-coded to do what they do. Trying to rehabilitate them is a waste of taxpayer money.

No, what we need is for potential criminals to truly fear the consequences of their actions, to the point where they won't even consider doing them. That's the whole point of the punishment: to act as a deterrent. We want to stop criminals before they become criminals, not wait until they commit crimes and then try to persuade them to change their ways.

Agreed. But the problem is that as much as we'd like it not to be, a governmental criminal justice system is ultimately political. And rehabilitation of rapists is never going to be politically popular.

Maybe we really do need to learn to "turn the other cheek".

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I get the emotional response - I have that too. But that's what a government criminal justice system *should* do, is prevent that - and use cool logic for the right rehabilitative outcome. Instead, our courts are the thin wedge of the criminal vengeance system, channelling media churned victim and bystander rage.

I really don't know. I've actually thought about this before.

Ignoring the awful "blame the victim" stuff that was happening earlier, rehabilitation for rapists gets to the heart of what we want in a justice system. And it puts us in an incredibly uncomfortable place.

My visceral, gut reaction is quite honestly
"fuck 'em, they deserve whatever they get"

But that's exactly the same thinking I criticise in others who call for harsher penalties for other crimes, and I find myself arguing for thieves and even murderers. So here I am in the position of trying to, if not sympathise, at least empathise with people who've committed the most heinous crime.

Intellectually, if they can pay their dues and show genuine remorse, then everyone deserves a second chance.

Emotionally, I want them to suffer.

It's a human condition and it might be something we can't rise above.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Crappy situation all around. What they did was wrong, but they are sobbing because their life may be over for all intents and purposes. Very little hope for rehabilitation in a system that makes career criminals.

Everyone cheering their incarceration in this thread - what do you think is more important - justice and punishment - or rehabilitation? Because that's what it comes down to. One of the myriad problems with the US criminal justice system is that it's heavily weighted towards justice and a form of institutional vengeance, with very little going into rehabilitation.

What happens when these guys re-enter American society in a few years as convicted sex offenders after a few years in the clink? Any semblance of a good life is over for them from this point on.