Jury Duty Question: Punishment or Rehabilitation

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I had jury duty today (didn't get picked) but one question the prosecuting attorney asked was kind of interesting. She went through 50 people asking each one to state whether they thought sending a person to prison was primarily punishment or for rehabilitation.

I think the panel mostly said punishment.

Since it was presented as an open question, I said that I didn't think it was primarily either one -- that we send people to prison because they were a danger to society. One guy sitting behind me agreed.

I didn't get picked, but don't think that was the reason -- I also stated that if the person was found guilty of the abuse he was accused of that I would not be willing to consider probation in the sentencing part of the trial. I think that got me kicked off by the defense attorney.

So, what do you think of the reason people are sent to prison? Rehabilitation or punishment?

[Marg Webb]

Punishment, I wish it was for rehibilitation for some.

[Chuck Wilkes]

The penal system in the U.S. is driven, primarily, by a desire to punish wrongdoers. It is a completely failed system and part of the reason is that it is cloaked in "rehabilitation" terms while embracing no such reality.

I've been a correctional officer, an attorney, and a pastor and I've seen the system from all directions. It is racially-biased, failed attempt to bring order into conditions it cannot even begin to address properly. I'm preparing a seminar for this fall on "Restorative Justice", a much more Biblical/Wesleyan concept.

Okay, enough soapbox for today!

Chuck

[Sue Pyles]

I would think they were sent to prison for punishment with the hope that they would be rehabilitated, not neccessarily to be turned loose again , but for their own good.
I'm with you 100% on the probation thoughts.
I'm concerned about the Plea bargain that is allowed to happen as well.

[BobHunt]

I think most of the time it is for punishment.
I was on a jury a few years ago, for a rape case in Gary, Indiana. A Afro-American (do they prefer that term or black?) girl said she had been raped by a guy. It was quite a case, both sides tesified and both sides gave extreme opposite settings. We found the young man guilty.
I was picked for another case, and reported in,but they told us to all go home, something happened in the jail and the prisoner wasnt going to be tried. We never found out what happened, I often have wondered if the prisoner committed suicide or something.

[Alisa Stoll]

Before America had prisons for long term sentences, prisons were only for holding the person until they went to trial. Then if they were found guilty a different punishment was determined. Eventually it was thought that time away from society was punishment enough and that was when larger prisons were built. The percentage of prisoners who return to prison due to additional crimial activity would indicate that it has some but limited value for rehabilitation. Life sentences would also indicate there is not an ability (at least for that prisoner) for the prison to rehabilitate or that at least that we are not willing to take a chance on that particular prisoner.

Alisa

[Wilson L. Deaton]

So, what do you think of the reason people are sent to prison? Rehabilitation or punishment?

I think there is a historical precedence. For rehabilitation send to prison. For punishment send to Austraila.

As others have said in the past:

Running for cover...
Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

I think there is a historical precedence. For rehabilitation send to prison. For punishment send to Austraila.

Or Georgia.

:basic05

[Ron Davis]

In most of these conversations the topic comes around to tougher sentences, plea bargains, and probation. A few years ago I took a course for Victim Advocates which changed my way of thinking on a lot of these issues.

In the class statistics were given that clearly show the courts and prosecutors cannot bring every case to trial. There is simply not enough prosecutors and judges to try that many cases. The prosecutors must make determinations based on numerous factors to decide which cases must be tried. More cases are plea bargained than are ever brought to trial.

Once the conviction is in hand you can't even put everyone in jail. We can't build and staff jails fast enough.

It is true our justice system in practice is unfair and favors those who can pay. I'm not sure what the solution is but I don't think the justice system will ever be the solution to crime.

[Dave McClung]

I had jury duty today (didn't get picked) but one question the prosecuting attorney asked was kind of interesting. She went through 50 people asking each one to state whether they thought sending a person to prison was primarily punishment or for rehabilitation.

I think the panel mostly said punishment.

Since it was presented as an open question, I said that I didn't think it was primarily either one -- that we send people to prison because they were a danger to society. One guy sitting behind me agreed.

I didn't get picked, but don't think that was the reason -- I also stated that if the person was found guilty of the abuse he was accused of that I would not be willing to consider probation in the sentencing part of the trial. I think that got me kicked off by the defense attorney.

So, what do you think of the reason people are sent to prison? Rehabilitation or punishment?

In many states, there was a definite shift in the 1990's. Until that time, the concept was to rehabilitate criminals. In the 1990's, Americans gave up of rehabilitation and decided to build enough prisons to lock criminals away for the purpose of preventing more crime. Frankly, most are locked away and forgotten.

In Texas, where Scott lives, prisons have become "business." In many small towns in Texas, the local prison is the primary industry. I am now in Lamesa, Linda's home town. The local prison hires more people and pays better wages than any other business in town. A few years ago, there was a threat that the prison would be closed. The locals protested, "You can' t close our prison!!!"

The one principle upon which most people agree, when a person is locked up in prison, he won't steal your car.



I

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

In many states, there was a definite shift in the 1990's. Until that time, the concept was to rehabilitate criminals. In the 1990's, Americans gave up of rehabilitation and decided to build enough prisons to lock criminals away for the purpose of preventing more crime. Frankly, most are locked away and forgotten.



Dave (or Chuck) I have a question -- what was it that the prosecutor was looking for with the question? Which did she want to hear people say, punishment or rehabilitation...and why?

[Bruce Carriker]

Chuck, I'd love to visit with you via email sometime about your Restorative Justice seminar.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Well, the jobs for people that do not have a college degree in prisons in Tennnessee is very love. They have a big turn over of security guards. And, each time, the new ones are sent away to train. they have a tiny cot to sleep on in a tiny room, but the meals are fabuloud, while they are in Tullahoma. They they usually go back for M-F training once each year. Oh yes, they have a swimming pool that they can use at night, also. Fianlly, they told Dwayne that he did not have to go to Tullahome anymore. but, later, he had to go in February of 2000. so, that time I went with him to Tullahoma, and we got a motel. I had snacks and a coffee maker for breakfast and lunch. He only had time to come over at lunch one day. Then, at night, we went out to eat.
I don't see why they don't just pay the people more and quit sending them on that weeks vacation once each year--with pay. Of course, the college graduates don't get rich on their salary either. But, it was something that Dwayne could do as a bi-vocational pastor for 30 years. And, the retirement come in good now. He quit once for three years. At that time, he was with DHS, but later changed to corrections. He hated having to counsel sex offenders. Most of the people don't think they are quilty--according to what they say. And, the rapist think they are doing something that a woman wants them to do.
They way I understand the Bible (OT), a person was to die for rape and/or death. Should we go by what the OT teaches?
Maybe, I am wrong, but I believe in capital punishment.

[Dennis M. Scott]

A multi-faceted issue.
There seems to be a part of it that is society doesn't know how to or doesn't want to face some issues of what we call "deviant behavior". Persons - offenders - act in ways that are outside the norm. There is a moving line that somehow defines what is acceptable behavior. Unacceptable behavior persons are "put out" of society by incarceration. Rather than deal with the issues of behavior - some of which are predictable, and likely in part preventable - society isolates those who behave that way, and society goes on, unchanged, having not dealt with the real issues. "Out of sight, out of mind."

In another generation, another time, specific labeled behavior might be judged acceptable, and such behaviors are at least tolerated in society.
An example would be some of the looting that took place in New Orleans. In most instances such behavior is unacceptable, but in this case it was interpretted as a supply and demand distribution of goods, and a matter of survival. No one is exactly maintaining it should become normative, but most people understood the violation. Another example of changing societal values would be in the arena of parenting. Things change. If society's negative value of spanking had been in place a couple generations earlier, parental visitation would have meant we would have only seen our parents in jail. :basic03

As to whether our system is punitive, healing or to isolate, my guess is that most of the time society wants all of those to be served. Likely none of those goals are really being met.

[Marsha Lynn]

Since it was presented as an open question, I said that I didn't think it was primarily either one -- that we send people to prison because they were a danger to society. One guy sitting behind me agreed.

Scott, Scott, Scott. You will never win a coveted seat in the jury box unless you change your ways.

The attorney gave you two (2) choices. You rejected both and independently came up with a third option. And you influenced another potential juror to agree with you. I believe that this did indeed end all hope of serving for you. This is not the type of response that either attorney wants to hear.

A good jury is like a flock of sheep, obediently following the voice of authority. When the prosecuting attorney speaks, the jurors all flock over to his/her side. When the defense attorney speaks, they do an about face and flock to the other side. At the end of the trial, they roam about in confusion for a while and then proclaim their loyalty to the side with the most convincing argument based solely on what they've heard. Jurors who introduce independent thinking into the mix are a liability to both sides, particularly if that thinking opens the door to common sense.

Next time you land an interview of this sort, say to yourself over and over, "Baa, baa, baa," and do your best to blend in with the rest of the sheep. I think you will find this brings much more favorable results.

:fav16

Signed,
Little Bo Peep

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Cute post! I smiled all the way through. When the jury was named the rest were quickly ushered out of the room and I had to hurry to try and place those who were selected. The funny thing was that aside from a couple of notable ones, the people who were picked had not made a strong impression on me. My conclusion was that if you want to be on a jury say as little as possible. That fits well with your observation.



Scott, Scott, Scott. You will never win a coveted seat in the jury box unless you change your ways.

The attorney gave you two (2) choices. You rejected both and independently came up with a third option. And you influenced another potential juror to agree with you. I believe that this did indeed end all hope of serving for you. This is not the type of response that either attorney wants to hear.

A good jury is like a flock of sheep, obediently following the voice of authority. When the prosecuting attorney speaks, the jurors all flock over to his/her side. When the defense attorney speaks, they do an about face and flock to the other side. At the end of the trial, they roam about in confusion for a while and then proclaim their loyalty to the side with the most convincing argument based solely on what they've heard. Jurors who introduce independent thinking into the mix are a liability to both sides, particularly if that thinking opens the door to common sense.

Next time you land an interview of this sort, say to yourself over and over, "Baa, baa, baa," and do your best to blend in with the rest of the sheep. I think you will find this brings much more favorable results.

:fav16

Signed,
Little Bo Peep

[Brian Hammons]

I have another sure fire method of avoiding jury duty, that is, if one is determined not to serve. . .

The case was one of reverse discrimination against a large multinational corporation located in our county. I was selected from the pool, and as we were being questioned, the plaintiff's counsel asked if any of us thought there should be limits on cash awards jurys made to plaintiffs. I glanced left, then right. No one was responding. I slowly raised my hand and replied, "I do." Counsel asked me what factors should determine the limits. My response was "Whether counsel was working on retainer or contigency." Even the judge nearly hit the floor in laughter, although I meant that as a serious response (It could have been phrased a bit better, perhaps). Needless to say, I was excused.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Please note that I meant that the jobs in prisons for people without a college degree is VERY low in Tennessee--and those with a degree are not very high either. But the state does pay about 70-80% of our medical insurance.

[Ann Smith]

I spent 10 years working in Corrections in Illinois. The employees were punished for everything they did that could be construed as wrong. The entire system was punishment mentality. They gave lip service to Correction or Rehabilitation, but I saw very little of it. I have a daughter still working in Corrections and nothing has changed. The whole system is rotten and needs to be changed.
Ann