Nutured criminals

[Alice Lost]

Dogs, cats and other animals are sometimes nutured to stop them from fighting or breeding. If the prison system required common criminals to be nutured, what effect would it have on crime in general?

Opinions welcome!

[Faceless111]

There'd be a lot less prison sex.

[miniPhil]

i think theyd get even more pissed at the police, riots would follow

[Eris]

Testosterone boosts aggressivity, so you'd see a drop in manslaughter and other sorts of heat of the moment style crimes, besides the obvious effect on rapists. But that probably would be it. Most crimes would not be deterred, since testosterone is not the cause.

The crime against the genepool is far worse than all the the crimes you prevent as a total.

[Demonstaff]

Parts of the prison system are flawed to a large degree, such as letting inmates excersize and lift wieghts as much as they plese to the point where not a single guard could take them on. Never a good idea. Nurturing for some criminals would be good, because neglect is often what's caused their behavior to begin with. But in more sever cases it wouldn't really make a difference on how they act or think, they'll just see prison as some sort of summer camp where instead of punishment they're coddled.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Almost none. Most repeat criminals are created by environment, not genetics. And as far as hormone production, like Diesel said it would only have an effect on crimes of passion, and not necessarily much.

Also, note that we used to do this to the retarded in the 18-1900s. It had no effect. Eugenics approaches like this are stupid, and ineffectual.

[Demonstaff]

Almost none. Most repeat criminals are created by environment, not genetics. And as far as hormone production, like Diesel said it would only have an effect on crimes of passion, and not necessarily much.

Also, note that we used to do this to the retarded in the 18-1900s. It had no effect. Eugenics approaches like this are stupid, and ineffectual.
I agree completely.

[Eris]

But in more sever cases it wouldn't really make a difference on how they act or think, they'll just see prison as some sort of summer camp where instead of punishment they're coddled.

Yes, let's go medieval! Boil them in oil! That'll teach'em! And bring out some cheerleaders, and put it all on TV as well while we're at it!

Iron maiden! Iron maiden! Ra! Ra! Ra!
Now you're full of holes! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[Demonstaff]

Prison is a punishment, yes part of it's goal is to rehabilitate people, but for some, it' sjust not oging to happen, and the odds aren't going to get any better of them changing by trying to make them all out to be victims, don't get me wrong, alot are, but not all of them.

[DOOM!]

There have already been countless similar attempts by the governmet to "change" the convicts, why do you think none of them are applied in any penetentiary around the world? Have you learned nothing from the movie "A Clockwork Orange"? You thought it was just fiction?
Since LongAgo, to Now, till Forever, freedom alone will allways be an fair price for crime. I think this thread is pointless.

[Ωmega]

There have already been countless similar attempts by the governmet to "change" the convicts, why do you think none of them are applied in any penetentiary around the world? Have you learned nothing from the movie "A Clockwork Orange"? You thought it was just fiction?
Since LongAgo, to Now, till Forever, freedom alone will allways be an fair price for crime. I think this thread is pointless.
You beat me to it ;D
Ive seen dogs become even MORE agrivated and agressive after being nutured, so I would expect the same would happen with inmates.

[Demonstaff]

It's like a child, if they're rude and cause trouble, and you simply spoil them, how is that tackling the problem? You need to actually direct attention to the reason for the actions, most of the time it's not giong to be because they're lacking something in their lives, it's normally just, they've shaped into that kind of person over the years, that kind of influence is unfortunately irreversable.

[DOOM!]

You beat me to it ;D
Ive seen dogs become even MORE agrivated and agressive after being nutured, so I would expect the same would happen with inmates.
Heh, not only that, but some of them might try to resist it. What are they gonna do, then? Kill them, or go harder on them?
In the end, you'll end up asking yourself what good are these "reabilitated" people. It's not like just because they are convicts, they are no longer human beings. Some of them get convicted by mistake, get framed, or for crimes that don't involve agresive behavior.

[rpgwiz99]

This happens to be almost the crazyest topic I have ever seen, and I have seen some crazy/random topics. It might work for dogs but the avrage human dosent have the mindset of a dog. You dont see humans going around sniffing each others butt do you?

[Eris]

It's like a child, if they're rude and cause trouble, and you simply spoil them, how is that tackling the problem? You need to actually direct attention to the reason for the actions, most of the time it's not giong to be because they're lacking something in their lives, it's normally just, they've shaped into that kind of person over the years, that kind of influence is unfortunately irreversable.

You're basing this conclusion on what, exactly?

[Demonstaff]

Ever actually raised/or taken care of a child?

Modern psychology focuses on finding something to blame for actions rather than come to terms with the possibility that the fault rests on the individual. Of course this doesn't always apply to crimes of passion or at all to people who are wrongly convicted. By insisting that someone or something is the reason why they've killed or raped, or stolen, it gives that person immunity to guilt or blame making it okay that they've chosen a certian life or actions. Prison is meant to inforce that those actions a decisions are wrong, and that there are consequences for them.

[sasunarubishoujo]

You beat me to it ;D
Ive seen dogs become even MORE agrivated and agressive after being nutured, so I would expect the same would happen with inmates.

Edited by Bean. How about we say that in a nicer way?

[Alice Lost]

Have you learned nothing from the movie "A Clockwork Orange"? You thought it was just fiction?

Nope! never saw or heared of it.

[Demonstaff]

It's a movie where they rehabilitate a murderer by means of brainwashing/force.

[Alice Lost]

In America, if you are a criminal, you have a big chance of going to jail. Back in Germany, if you are a criminal, your life is already in danger... by the police (trust me. I know)! If there was a law saying "you become a felon, you lose your manhood/womanhood" how many people would be willing to commit crimes? I do not have a problem with police. My caretaker says "only common criminals are scared of common cops".


It's a movie where they rehabilitate a murderer by means of brainwashing/force.

That sounds kind of eerie. I may have to look for a copy sometime (I dont watch many movies).

[Hyperaesthesia]

From the title, I thought the topic was about 'nurturing' not 'neutering', and neutering prisoners is quite different from giving them a big hug and looking after them while they're inside.

Anyway, reversible chemical castration IS used for some prisoners. I know some have had it done with their consent- I've read studies with sex offenders who realised their libido made them a threat to others and was causing them misery (er.. although probably not as much as their victims). For prisoners who do have some sort of hormonal deficit that causes them serious problems controlling their behaviour, correcting it with their consent as part of a controlled sentence and treatment.. that's probably a good idea.

I haven't seen any recent studies on this and it may have been disproven since, but I remember years ago there was a lot of fuss over the high populations of incarcerated men with an extra sex chromosome (XYY) that's linked to higher testosterone. And testosterone can increase a whole number of behaviours that might be involved in crime- competition, aggression, sex drives, etc. But plenty of men with high testosterone levels don't commit crime, and plenty of men with low levels do commit it. One hormone is not enough to explain the whole story, and even excluding the ethical issues, it's an overly simple solution- it might reduce crime, but it would miss the cause of the problem in many cases. You'd be treating all of these prisoners to catch something that's only even a factor (not an entire cause by itself) in a percentage of cases.

[DOOM!]

It's a movie where they rehabilitate a murderer by means of brainwashing/force.
Not brainwashing, giving them a dose of violence that they like till they become sick of it, and beyond. More like toilet training your child by making them smell their own poop.

In America, if you are a criminal, you have a big chance of going to jail. Back in Germany, if you are a criminal, your life is already in danger... by the police (trust me. I know)! If there was a law saying "you become a felon, you lose your manhood/womanhood" how many people would be willing to commit crimes? ".
Crimes will still continue regardless, that threat will just make people fear cops more. I do not fear cops. I HATE cops. Every time i get pulled over, i accompany my "Hello sir" with sarcastic/diplomatic satires on the officer quiestioning my legality.
Edit: Also, you shouldn't miss this movie, it's a classic! The director is none other than Stanley Kubbrick!

[Buruku]

Dogs, cats and other animals are sometimes nutured to stop them from fighting or breeding. If the prison system required common criminals to be nutured, what effect would it have on crime in general?

Even neutering animals has a limited effect, it only stops them from breeding. It doesnt even prevent them from showing sexual behavior, much less fighting. It only gets rid of aggression that would be triggered by those mating instincts, not aggression thats caused by anything else.

I think its safe to say that only a very small percent of human violence has to do with anything 'sexual' so neutering would have like no effect. Much like animals, the only thing it would stop us from doing is reproducing.

[pfftlecakes]

I feel that the neutering of criminals wouldn't have a high effect on those who have already comitted crimes. These folks should be treated just as any other criminal of their status and shouldn't be released just because of this type of proceedure. People have already stated that this would simply have little to no effect on the inmates and I whole-heartedly agree.

However, would you go out and comit a crime such as arson, theft, robbery or breaking and entering knowing that you have a high risk of losing your reproductive organs? I don't think this would help those already condemned, but it damn well would keep the crime rates from getting any higher.

For those promoting the film 'A Clockwork Orange', I'd like to inform you that it was actually a novel by Anthony Burgess before it was a film and I feel that the book actually has a better theme than the movie does. One should simply give credit where credit is due.

Stanley Kubrick did a wonderful job of translating most of the text very close to the author's original visuals, but the ending is far off the mark with it's political mix-ins. In all honesty, the book isn't that long and you'd do better to actually get your hands on both.

[Rageling]

There are already people who commit crimes just for the three square meals a day and free shelter prison promises, if we nurtured them then we'd have orphans stealing cars in order to get daddy figures.

[Demonstaff]

In America, if you are a criminal, you have a big chance of going to jail. Back in Germany, if you are a criminal, your life is already in danger... by the police (trust me. I know)! If there was a law saying "you become a felon, you lose your manhood/womanhood" how many people would be willing to commit crimes? I do not have a problem with police. My caretaker says "only common criminals are scared of common cops". Hamurabi, the original "eye for an eye"

[DOOM!]

Stanley Kubrick did a wonderful job of translating most of the text very close to the author's original visuals, but the ending is far off the mark with it's political mix-ins. In all honesty, the book isn't that long and you'd do better to actually get your hands on both.
No need. Let me just grab, translate and transcribe my Stanley Kubbrick book to this thread.
In 1972, ten years after he wrote the book, Burgess comments:
"It was supposed to be some sort of manifest, a prediction even, on the importance of being able to choose. My hero, or anti-hero, Alex, is really evil, at an inconceivable level, but his wickedness is not the product of a theoretical or social conditioning, it's his personal choice, in wich he embarked with full sanity. Alex is evil, not just delinquent, thus, in a correctley formed society, cruel actions like his must be punished. Though his evilness is human: in agressive acts, we can notice potentialty present in us, wich, for the non-criminal citizen, it concretises in war, in social disorder, in the evil that exercitates in family, in the dreams that we harvest. Alex represents humanity in three ways: he's agressive, he loves beauty, he uses language."

Also, while i'm at it, let me post Kubbrick's alternative comment, seing as it has to do with this thread:
"It must be clear that it is wrong to transform even the worst of criminals into vegetables, otherwise we'd fall into the logical trap of the old hollywood westerns against lynching that we allways vanify showing the lynching of an innocent. Naturally, no one will doubt the fact that lynching an innocent is wrong, but will they agree that it's still wrong to lynch a guilty, even if he was guilty for a horrible crime?"