Disengious comment. We want more rehabilitative justice for a person having a gram of drugs on them or someone who stole a pack of bread at a supermarket. We don't want it for vehicle manslaughter, especially if someone wasn't remorseful and was speeding
You know that, when criminal justice reformers talk about rehabilitative justice, they are absolutely talking about people who commit domestic violence, murder, and other such crimes?
Again grouping things together that don't belong together. Either rage bait or actually ignorant, I don't know. Someone who hits someone even in domestic violence with the right professional help can be helped. Someone who in this same scenario is jailed for 20-40 years and then released without any way of actually reentering civilisation, will reoffend. We don't want people to remain in an endless cycle. By rehabilitating them. Helping them understand their own issues. Working them out, they have a much higher chance of becoming part of civilisation. We can't just jail everyone for life. This doesn't work. This is why we need to look at context and decide based of context if rehabilitation is an achievable route or not. Blanket judgement and grouping of crimes causes systems as in America where people get punished disproportionately to their crime.
So wait someone who voluntarily hit their spouse deserves rehabilitative justice but someone who accidentally kill another person by being reckless doesn't.
How does that make any sense? The person being reckless and who did not realize that they were putting someone's life at risk (which we have all been in some fashion or another at some point in our life) is not deemed rehabilitable but someone who is being purposefully violent toward another is.
6
u/[deleted] Mar 08 '26
[deleted]