Well, like I said, IMO. My dad was minister, he helped found a halfway-house in our community to help people released from prison re-integrate into society. I believe a couple of things, based on this experience. One is, it’s worth trying, and two, even though it’s hard, and frequently fails.
And to clarify a bit, when I say I don’t think any human is irredeemable, I mean that, but I also understand that many live so far on the extreme of the bell curve that redemption would require a miraculous, and statistically unlikely set of events. So, no rose-colored glasses.
Again, we should be providing necessary state systems to support the underclass and re entry into society.
There is nothing unique to 12 step or religious programs that distinguish them from providing basic social services.
I believe of course we should provide those mínimums, and tax dodging religious institutions should help the state provide them independent of religious discretion (again, no value-add of earthly redemption, only once they have left this world.)
Again, not saying anything specific about the home and services provided and what ends achieved. Just seems an error to assume that the default is good being achieved by these “rehabilitation projects” considering Evangelicalism, aspects of Catholic works, further exploration of the marginalized for money or power is all along the history of faith.
Might as well be comparing apples to rocks, there; Norway doesnt have the US’s extensive history of colonial exploitation, genocide and the reliance upon slave labor to build its economy which wrought the current status quo in the US.
Good luck.
True that; if there was one to be had at all, ‘the silver lining’ in this horrible-ass tale is that women in Ohio are looking out for one another by sounding the warning alarm in regards to convicted rapist Brock Turner.
Oh, we could absolutely do better. US prison system is tragically bad. But I would also call out that recidivism is not the same thing as redemption. I would take a 20% recidivism rate in a heartbeat, but apalatn was asking about redemption which is a much more fraught conversation.
Note that I didn’t say that Norway didn’t have ANY history of being colonizing bastards at all; merely that it was not nearly as extensive as the US’s.
Thanks and have a great day now.
If I spend too much more time on this depressing-ass topic, I might start contemplating the unthinkable.
From a societal standpoint, the difference is irrelevant. From an individual standpoint, it depends whether you look at it from the perspective of the criminal or the victim. Redemption for the criminal means making amends, but in many cases I think that further contact with the victim just causes more harm. I don’t belive in forcing victims, especially victims of sexual assault, to have any contact with their attacker. Many traditional forms of redemption, including the 12 step programs you referred to earlier, require the one seeking redemption to make amends to the victim of their misbehavior.
I agree with you on the societal value of reducing recidivism. I think redemption is a problematic thing to discuss, as it’s a loaded term, and is going to mean different things to different people.
By whose standard? A heartfelt apology showing remorse might be good enough for some to accept his redemption, but not others. Heck, even serving the maximum allowable sentence wouldn’t be enough for some people to consider him fully punished, let alone reformed.
If you really want an answer, you’ll have to ask his victim (arguably the only person whose opinion here matters), and I don’t think there’s anything he’d be able to do to ever convince her that he’s fully reformed.
Rehabilitation is possible (which is why the carceral state as it stands is not necessary, and just a racist exercise in disenfranchisement and legal slavery).
In the case of sexual violence, we’re all raised in a culture that minimizes and normalizes r-pe, and many of us (all of us here, hopefully) grow and learn to recognize that those norms are constructed, and harmful, especially to marginalized folks like women, nonbinary folks, and children. I can see someone raised in a culture that normalized and minimized r-pe operating under those values and choosing to do that harmful thing, and still later having the same kind of learning happen that forces them to realize the heinous harm of their choice. I can also see some folks not wanting to face that, doubling down and becoming more dangerous.
I don’t see the carceral system doing anything to make anyone less of a danger, particularly in the case of Turner who saw almost no consequence for his actions. As such, I would not risk assuming he was reformed and safe to be around (and frankly, if he had reformed, he should recognize others people’s need for safety trumps his need for comfort).
In an ideal world where restorative justice practices were established, some potential for rehabilitation, in terms defined in collaboration with those harmed, would be possible (FWIW, I don’t want my r-pist to go to prison. I never want to interact with them again, and, ideally, would want them in a substance-abuse program that would in their case reduce their chance of hurting others. In our present world I have to be content with blocking all contact and hoping they’re not hurting someone else). We don’t live in that world, and the world we live in almost certainly hasn’t given Turner the experiences needed to reform his entitlement, beliefs, and activities.
For anyone interested in some science, I recommend reading any of the research done by RK Hanson and/or Monique Bussiere. Their seminal works are a series of co-authored meta-analyses on recidivism rates but they’ve done some independent research individually and are some of the most prolific writers on the concept of recidivism and rehabilitation among sex offenders.
