nullroot

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

Okay, so you want prison, but with time more suited to the crime to give ample opportunity to reform. I don't even want prisons. Rehabilitation should be completely different from that. You're still using the stick and hurting people by taking away their freedom. I think that's why our opinions differ. You would continually punish offenders and I would just give them a chance to reform or leave. I don't really like the idea of putting anyone in a cage.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you were tolerating their actions lol. I agree that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

My idea of exile, just a thought in my head, would be that it would be a choice to go through rehabilitation or leave society. If a person refuses to stop being intolerant, what is the solution? They can refuse treatment, act in bad faith, and I don't think forcing compliance ever helped anything. So what do we do?

I get that exile is kind of a terrible antiquated idea, but if we cannot tolerate intolerance and the offender refuses to change what is the solution?

This isn't an example of that. My alternatives were rehabilitation or exile, which I suppose could be argued isn't reform as we've exiled people as punishment for like as long as we've been people, but I'm really having a hard time seeing how I said "except in the case of x" I said you should be mean to Nazis, not lock them up for life.

American here as well. Prison reform is needed, it's modern slavery. But these people are Nazis and I do feel no remorse being intolerant of their actions in society. Rehabilitation or exile I do think are appropriate ways forward. It's not the people that aren't reasonable, it's our laws and two tiered justice system.

Fun story about that. I was harvesting one of my first cannabis grows and one plant was too dense and definitely got moldy. I spent hours and hours going through the fresh flower with a scope and at one point thought I was going to have to throw everything out: there was mold everywhere!! Which was of course true, there is mold everywhere. I went a little crazy that day, but eventually chose an acceptable amount of fungus and moved on with my life. There was no issues drying and curing except in the one jar I put the black stuff just to see what would happen. It got gross.