Political Weirdos

In your rehabilitation model would criminals allowed to go free or would they be held through the rehabilitation process? What if they are violent and pose an immediate threat to the community?

If the safety of the public is at risk, then some amount of supervision is necessary. If a person is violent for example, then being restrained, restricted, or sedated is probably necessary. There can be no tolerance of them interfering with the freedoms of others.

Having thought about this for half the day, my best answer is that response, the no tolerance, should be as humane as possible. If a person is actively homicidal, then yes, they need to be restrained. If a person is untrustworthy they need to be tracked.

However, rehabilitation should teach integration into society and thus should be tightly integrated with society. Ideally rehabilitation happens in the community you live in and with as minimal restrictions as possible other than whatever requirements there is for safety of the community, attending, passing, reintegration, whatever we're calling it, a person should be encouraged to live and work within their community.

If we end up in extremes as would of course happen, the order of which I think is most humane to least is as follows : voluntary exile, voluntary imprisonment, involuntary imprisonment, involuntary exile, execution