Support NeoGAF

[CadetMahoney]

Politically motivated mass murder of thousands of people by the state, all within the framework of then-applicable laws.

Umm it was quite illegal to murder jews.

Nazis just went ahead and did it anyway.

It would've been a big give-away if they put it in law even in a roundabout sugar-coating way (which they didn't), since it would be public record.

 

[potam]

Indeed an interesting argument.
Thanks for the link.


Many innocent people provide nothing for society.

There are people with mental illness so severe, that it prevents them from providing anything of "worth" for society, i hope you'd (rightfully) find it revolting if we decided to kill off these people, yes?
On the other hand there are plenty of murderers who turn their life around and create a "net worth" by doing a job.

I think the "usefulness for society" angle, is an argument with very gross and dangerous implications.

In truth, I think capital punishment should go away since it is easily corrupt and doesn't really provide any benefits.

But, I agree with the general idea for it.

 

[Sorian]

Many innocent people provide nothing for society.

There are people with mental illness so severe, that it prevents them from providing anything of "worth" for society, i hope you'd (rightfully) find it revolting if we decided to kill off these people, yes?
On the other hand there are plenty of murderers who turn their life around and create a "net worth" by doing a job.

I think the "usefulness for society" angle, is an argument with very gross and dangerous implications.

To be fair, there is 0 net worth and negative net worth. Someone with a severe mental illness wouldn't be in the negative category like someone who kills for fun.

 

[Oersted]

Stop bringing up your president fetish thing, you're a fool if you can't see the difference between the crimes of a country and the crimes of an individual.

And when I say fool-proof there, I am talking about making sure that someone who is likely to commit a big crime again (a serial murderer, for example) is never able to. People can escape from prison, people can't come back to life.

I somehow thought Shoa was more despicable than anything an individual can do. Silly me.

So the likeliness of a convicted murder escaping jail outweighs the likeliness that someone innocent could get murdered?

To be fair, there is 0 net worth and negative net worth. Someone with a severe mental illness wouldn't be in the negative category like someone who kills for fun.

You are already deciding about peoples right to life trough their net worth. That is already the final step to make the killing of disabled acceptable.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Many innocent people provide nothing for society.

There are people with mental illness so severe, that it prevents them from providing anything of "worth" for society, i hope you'd (rightfully) find it revolting if we decided to kill off these people, yes?
On the other hand there are plenty of murderers who turn their life around and create a "net worth" by doing a job.

I think the "usefulness for society" angle, is an argument with very gross and dangerous implications.

Only if you treat killing someone as a solution to the problem.

Those who espouse the social benefit argument would also couple it with arguments for rehabilitation, and trying to make everyone more useful to society. This could range from trying to improve wage laws, free higher education, helping the disabled, improving the benefit system, etc, with the goal of making more people positively contribute to society.

Someone who is mentally disabled can still increase their positive contribution to society, and in the process actually benefit from doing so themselves.

 

[Kuroyume]

Innocent people have been killed through this form of punishment. That to me is totally unacceptable.

 

[Sorian]

I somehow thought Shoa was more despicable than anything an individual can do. Silly me.

So the likeliness of a convicted murder escaping jail outweighs the likeliness that someone innocent could get murdered?

You are already deciding about peoples right to life trough their net worth. That is already the final step to make the killing of disabled acceptable.

We are talking about individuals here, diverting the conversation for your own needs is unneccessary.

I never said that, if you'd be so kind as to read my posts (rough, I know) you'd see that I already said it would be a last resort that would only be used when there is no possible way that the person could be innocent.

No, that's the other guy, I'm just pointing out the difference between 0 net worth and negative net worth.

 

[Oersted]

We are talking about individuals here, diverting the conversation for your own needs is unneccessary.

I never said that, if you'd be so kind as to read my posts (rough, I know) you'd see that I already said it would be a last resort that would only be used when there is no possible way that the person could be innocent.

No, that's the other guy, I'm just pointing out the difference between 0 net worth and negative net worth.

You never can be 100 percent sure.

 

[UrbanRats]

To be fair, there is 0 net worth and negative net worth. Someone with a severe mental illness wouldn't be in the negative category like someone who kills for fun.

Well, someone who can't produce anything of worth, but also needs constant watch by, say, nurses, is a negative net worth.

By contrast you can have a perfectly sane individual that murdered someone, be extremely productive and create incredible worth in the future.

I think it's a very weird argument to use to justify Death Penalty.

Like, Polanski is positive net-worth? What about a doctor that finds the cure for HIV, but has murdered someone in the past?

I think these are some gross implications.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Yes because of black people. And it may not be necessary. But definitely because black people are rail roaded into it without cause. Just another way to lynch a lot of people.

 

[Sorian]

You never can be 100 percent sure.

Of course you can, it's an extremely rare set of circumstances but to say it never happens is silly.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

Im against it cuz its a waste of money and innocent people end up on death row on occassion.

 

[phisheep]

I think some people need to come to terms with the idea that there are people living in our society with a negative societal net worth. Those people's lives provide nothing for society.

Taking you literally for a moment, of course there are such people. Always have been and always will be. But surprisingly perhaps their lives often do provide something for society. They provide a reference point for the rest of us to know how lucky we are, they provide an outlet for individual, corporate and state philanthropy which makes people feel better and, perhaps more importantly, they do more than anybody else does to help out others in similar situations. I am continually humbled by the generosity of those barely above the poverty line to their friends, neighbours, family and even to strangers. They may not shovel much into the GDP but that is a different thing.

Back to the topic though, and assuming that by negative societal net worth you mean something like convicted murderers, then I think that is a false conflation or a false generalisation or a false something-or-other. There's no particular reason a convicted murderer (whether in fact guilty or innocent) can't make a decent contribution to society. Except for serial-killing psychopaths they are no more defined by their killing than, say, I am by something I did 10/15/20 years ago. And being as there's a higher-than-average proportion of sociopaths at the head of large corporations then even they might generate a lot of jobs too, given the right opportunities.

 

[Dali]

I think having someone locked in a cage for their entire life is more of a punishment than killing them. That's why I'm against the death penalty.

Also reason #2. If someone is innocent then it's a pretty messed up deal to kill them. I think people that try to wave it away by saying "it's just one every 1000" or let God sort them out are assholes and should be locked in a cage themselves, innocent of any crime, awaiting their death.

 

[sinxtanx]

Yes, I'm against it.

It's a horrible, expensive practice that involves killing people.

It also does not have the desired effect on serious crime as a deterrent (in fact, according to statistics the opposite is true so seriously wtf is it even there for).

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Im against it cuz its a waste of money and innocent people end up on death row on occassion.

Oh yeah, that too. It used to be that you could easily say it would cost $1million to get a death penalty, with the automatic appeals and futher appeals. Tired of them wasting my money.

 

[Sorian]

Well, someone who can't produce anything of worth, but also needs constant watch by, say, nurses, is a negative net worth.

By contrast you can have a perfectly sane individual that murdered someone, be extremely productive and create incredible worth in the future.

I think it's a very weird argument to use to justify Death Penalty.

Like, Polanski is positive net-worth? What about a doctor that finds the cure for HIV, but has murdered someone in the past?

I think these are some gross implications.

The whole net worth thing isn't my stance. I just pointed out that you used 0 net worth while the other guy was using negative net worth and its pretty easy to see that you had loaded your argument in an odd way with the whole severe mental illness thing.

 

[Nozem]

To those in favor of the death penalty: what is, for you personally, an acceptable ratio of wrongly convicted innocent executions vs rightful executions?

1 innocent for every 1000 guilty?

1 for every 10.000?

 

[Sorian]

To those in favor of the death penalty: what is, for you personally, an acceptable ratio of wrongly convicted innocent executions vs rightful executions?

1 innocent for every 1000 guilty?

1 for every 10.000?

0 innocent for every ∞ guilty, of course.

Which is why the death penalty is terrible in its current form.

 

[UrbanRats]

The whole net worth thing isn't my stance. I just pointed out that you used 0 net worth while the other guy was using negative net worth and its pretty easy to see that you had loaded your argument in an odd way with the whole severe mental illness thing.

I don't think it's that loaded to point out possible flaws in a reasoning.

I mean i just think, it's a weird argument to use, because it diverts from the criminal act itself, into a weird place of utility to society, which is not really how we operate on a human level.

So i can't accept it as a valid reason to kill someone.

 

[Seth C]

For it in theory, against it in practice. The current probability that innocent people have been and will in the future be executed is absolutely a justification to never use the death penalty. One state sanctioned execution of an innocent person easily outweighs a million blood thirsty murderers being killed. It's not even close.

I'm in this group, more or less. If it didn't somehow, against all rational thought, cost more then I'd be in support of it in cases where there is undeniable evidence (like multiple cameras recording the crime) or where the violator admits repeatedly and without pressure to say, multiple murders.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

1. wrongfully accused have no chance of exoneration once they're dead; no one with the pretense of valuing human life will say an innocent person being executed is okay, so why support this at all
2. doesn't deter people from committing death penalty-worthy crimes
3. expensive
4. death row only serves to torment inmates before death; they're not in any way paying debts to society or being any use to anyone besides prison owners
5. often no chance for rehabilitation; if rehabilitation is possible, it's pointless since they're either be in a cell or dead


Even if you want people to be punished/suffer (which does no good), death penalty is still pointless. All it's doing is putting them out of their misery.

If there's ever a circumstance where death penalty is ever unanimously agreed to be the best option, then it's a sign something else needs to change. No human locked in a super max is dangerous enough to warrant killing them for safety reasons.

 

[Nozem]

0 innocent for every ∞ guilty, of course.

Which is why the death penalty is terrible in its current form.

Then would you agree that until we have such a system, we should stop executing people?

 

[Sorian]

Then would you agree that until we have such a system, we should stop executing people?

Of course, but I'm still not against the death penalty.

 

[BearFlexington]

DNA testing can now reduce the number of wrongfully accused people dramatically. Give everyone suspected of murder a complete and thorough trial and spare no expense on modern evidence-collection methods. Afterwards, if the suspect is found guilty, kill them. There is zero reason to house and feed a murderer.

For those of you who disagree with this, ask yourself this question: If you came home in time to see someone killing someone that you hold dear and you had the means to ensure that this person didn't get to do it again, would you? Or would you put them up in the guest bed room with three squares a day?

 

[Tabasco]

I'm against it, but my state is in full support of it.

The way I see it, you shouldn't waste a human being's life just because he or she committed crimes. Besides, life in prison is a way worse punishment.

 

[UrbanRats]

For those of you who disagree with this, ask yourself this question: If you came home in time to see someone killing someone that you hold dear and you had the means to ensure that this person didn't get to do it again, would you? Or would you put them up in the guest bed room with three squares a day?

I wouldn't want an higher structure like the justice system to play off of my instinctive emotional states as an individual.

The way you pose the question is silly at best, of course.

 

[Liamario]

It doesn't work as a deterrent.
And teaching people not to murder by murdering them, doesn't make sense.

You don't teach a child to not punch people by punching them.

Of course, there are people who will just never learn, but that's a failure of society as a whole, than someone who is just evil.

 

[frankie_baby]

has the OP ever considered he might one day be on trail, falsely accused of murder, would he still support the death penalty then?

 

[phisheep]

DNA testing can now reduce the number of wrongfully accused people dramatically. Give everyone suspected of murder a complete and thorough trial and spare no expense on modern evidence-collection methods. Afterwards, if the suspect is found guilty, kill them. There is zero reason to house and feed a murderer.

Maybe it does reduce it, but not to zero and only when there is DNA and only when it isn't contaminated or faked up or lied about. Not convinced by that.

For those of you who disagree with this, ask yourself this question: If you came home in time to see someone killing someone that you hold dear and you had the means to ensure that this person didn't get to do it again, would you? Or would you put them up in the guest bed room with three squares a day?

Well, in some cases maybe putting them up in the guest bed with three squares a day might be a good way of making sure they didn't do it again.

I don't have much experience with murder, but I did have a very similar experience with a burglar many years ago. Came home to find him rummaging through my back room, yelled out to him to ask if he would like a cup of tea (no, I have no idea why I did that rather than anything else - it was a spur-of-the-moment thing) and we ended up sitting in the kitchen drinking tea and chatting. We kind of touched on the burglary thing a bit, but it was an uncomfortable topic for both of us so we just chatted about other stuff. Met him a few more times before I moved away, on the street and in bars, and I think he appreciated the human contact. I have no idea whether he is still burgling though.

Probably wouldn't have the guts to try that again though - but I wish that I would have, it was an interesting experience.

 

[Spinluck]

if you let them rot in a cell long enough, eventually they'll welcome death at one point or another. i know i'd fucking lose my mind and go insane.

death is totally an easy way out.

 

[reckless]

Yeah, way too many innocent people wind up dead or almost dead.
Also its the easy way out for murderers.

 

[Spinluck]

plus if you're put away for life you can still get a retrial correct if the system allows it, correct? or is it a right that we all have? not too knowledgeable on this area of law lol.

this would be nice for people who are wrongly accused.

 

[Future]

DNA testing can now reduce the number of wrongfully accused people dramatically. Give everyone suspected of murder a complete and thorough trial and spare no expense on modern evidence-collection methods. Afterwards, if the suspect is found guilty, kill them. There is zero reason to house and feed a murderer.

For those of you who disagree with this, ask yourself this question: If you came home in time to see someone killing someone that you hold dear and you had the means to ensure that this person didn't get to do it again, would you? Or would you put them up in the guest bed room with three squares a day?

Emotions should stay out of it.

What is jail time for? Rehabilitation. Protecting society from criminals. Making people feel better shouldn't be on the list

 

[NateDrake]

I'm in favour of it because of Albert Anastasia

You're in favor of the death penalty because of a man in the mafia who was killed by other people in the mafia? I don't see how this makes sense.......

 

[reckless]

Emotions should stay out of it.

What is jail time for? Rehabilitation. Protecting society from criminals. Making people feel better shouldn't be on the list

The US jail system is really about punishment not rehabilitation.

 

[Manmademan]

The US jail system is really about punishment not rehabilitation.

This is 100% incorrect.

 

[Zombie James]

I'm against it because I'm against murdering people.

 

[reckless]

This is 100% incorrect.

Its correct in the U.S...
The main goals of US prisons are deterence, punishment and profit...

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

Well, in some cases maybe putting them up in the guest bed with three squares a day might be a good way of making sure they didn't do it again.

I don't have much experience with murder, but I did have a very similar experience with a burglar many years ago. Came home to find him rummaging through my back room, yelled out to him to ask if he would like a cup of tea (no, I have no idea why I did that rather than anything else - it was a spur-of-the-moment thing) and we ended up sitting in the kitchen drinking tea and chatting. We kind of touched on the burglary thing a bit, but it was an uncomfortable topic for both of us so we just chatted about other stuff. Met him a few more times before I moved away, on the street and in bars, and I think he appreciated the human contact. I have no idea whether he is still burgling though.

Probably wouldn't have the guts to try that again though - but I wish that I would have, it was an interesting experience.

I'm pretty sure I read about you on some news story years ago.

 

[lewisgone]

As long as innocent people have a chance of being executed (which will be always) of course not.

When a person commits certain crimes they can cause pain and suffering for a lot of people. Killing them doesn't take it back, and even if it did make a victim feel more at peace with past events, does not warrant introducing a system that has a chance of killing an innocent person. Ever. Also a system that is extremely discriminatory in who ends up on death row (at least in America, I have not read enough on the practice in other countries)

The argument that it costs far more money is one I dislike as it diverts attention away from these real issues. If something costs more but is the right thing to do, it should be done. That said, it does make me somewhat happy that it means you don't get idiots arguing to kill them to stop them leeching off society (of course, many people still believe this is the case).

 

[John Kowalski]

What's scariest about this thread is the number of people who would totally be up for it if it could be guaranteed that no innocent would suffer through it. Implicitly operating under the notion that the death penalty is actually a valid method for handling criminals.

That is sick, and i'm glad that that way of thinking is rare among those with the power to put such decisions into effect.

 

[Manmademan]

Its correct in the U.S...
The main goals of US prisons are deterence, punishment and profit...

The vast majority of US prisons are publicly run, not for profit. The vast majority of inmates are in government run, not private institutions. At last count somewhere around 90% of all imates were NOT in private institutions.

217,690: Total federal inmate population as of May 2012, according to the Bureau of Prisons

27,970: Number of federal inmates in privately managed facilities within the Bureau of Prisons

http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry

Prison, the death penalty, and long prison sentences have never been shown to be a deterrent to crime.

The purpose of a US prison is most certainly NOT punishment, and significant expense and effort goes into educating inmates, treating substance abuse issues, and supplying inmates with mental health counseling while they are here.

The majority of those incarcerated for serious crimes do NOT end up re-offending for the same offense as a result. The highest percentage that do are for property crimes (i.e. burglary) at somewhere around 22%. 80% of those incarcerated for violent crimes are rehabilitated and do not re-offend for the same crimes. Inmates over 50 that are released virtually NEVER end up re-arrested for anything at all.

Source: I'm an administrator at one of the largest maximum security facilities in the country.

 

[jimi_dini]

Wait...

Wait? Rather go for it.

 

[reckless]

The vast majority of US prisons are publicly run, not for profit. The vast majority of inmates are in government run, not private institutions. At last count somewhere around 90% of all imates were NOT in private institutions.



http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry

Prison, the death penalty, and long prison sentences have never been shown to be a deterrent to crime.

The purpose of a US prison is most certainly NOT punishment, and significant expense and effort goes into educating inmates, treating substance abuse issues, and supplying inmates with mental health counseling while they are here.

The majority of those incarcerated for serious crimes do NOT end up re-offending for the same offense as a result. The highest percentage that do are for property crimes (i.e. burglary) at somewhere around 22%. 80% of those incarcerated for violent crimes are rehabilitated and do not offend. Inmates over 50 that are released virtually NEVER end up re-arrested for anything at all.

Source: I'm an administrator at one of the largest maximum security facilities in the country.

Anything more then 0% of inmates in private prisons is horrible. The prisons aren't the only ones profiting from our system, the entire justice system does...

Why do you only quote recidivism rates for people being caught doing the same crime? Is it so you can quote a smaller number?
Hard finding really recent data but that 22% is disingenuous to say the least. Lets look at a BJS study from 1994..
"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)."

If it isn't for punishment why do we have the death penalty... life imprisonment... mandatory sentencing... three strike laws.

Edit: Found a better statistic from a 2006 study. ". Within three years of their release, 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated"
"

 

[wickfut]

I'm against it as I don't like the idea of giving the government authorisation to bump off its own citizens.

 

[Manmademan]

Anything more then 0% of inmates in private prisons is horrible. The prisons aren't the only ones profiting from our system, the entire justice system does...

The entire justice system most certainly does not profit from private prisons. Private prisons are an expense, and given the choice we would much rather lower incarceration rates and not send them there in the first place.

Why do you only quote recidivism rates for people being caught doing the same crime? Is it so you can quote a smaller number?

I quoted rates for the same crime because that's what's relevant when considering rehabilitation. If a criminal is arrested for violent assault, spends 5 years behind bars, is released but then re-arrested for minor drug crimes or technical parole violations, that doesn't mean he isn't rehabilitated.

Hard finding really recent data but that 22% is disingenuous to say the least. Lets look at a BJS study from 1994..
"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%) and those in prison for possessing, using or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)."

Yeah, your information is not only laughably out of date, you fail to realize that REARREST and REINCARCERATION are two completely different statistics. One can be arrested without being incarcerated, and one can be incarcerated without being arrested (this usually for parole violations).

Here's a study from the PA department of corrections, where I am.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pennsylvania-department-of-corrections-releases-landmark-state-recidivism-study-193839961.html

The OVERALL recidivism rate is 60%. That means that within three years, 6 in ten are rearrested OR reincarcerated for some reason. This number sounds bad, until you dig deeper.

Nearly two-thirds of all reincarcerations within three years of release from prison are for technical parole violations. Nearly three-fourths of rearrests within three years of release from prison are for less serious (Part II) offenses.

Technical parole violations are for things that are NOT illegal, but instead a violation of terms of parole. Entering a bar and drinking, leaving a geographic area, not checking in with a parole officer on time. These go straight to prison without being "arrested." Of those who ARE arrested, 3/4 of those are Part II offenses- and Part II offenses are almost all minor drug crimes. a very small percentage of those who commit violent or serious crimes (rape, arson, assault) end up doing them again.

edit: this may help. It's from the 2013 PA recidivism report.

the yellow highlighted area show those rearrested for the same offense. only drug and property crime are above 20%.

If it isn't for punishment why do we have the death penalty... life imprisonment... mandatory sentencing... three strike laws.

18 states and the district of columbia have no death penalty. Of those states that do, it's rarely used relative to the amount of prisoners within the system. PA has a death penalty, but hasn't involuntarily executed anyone since the 1970s.

Keep in mind that the PRISON SYSTEM has nothing to do at all with who ends up with the death penalty, that's decided by a jury.

 

[Oersted]

To the few here who defend death punishment, where would you say stop? Where would you say this is unacceptable?

Very graphic


http://michaelbendovid.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0097e2f408833010536f63373970b-320wi

0 innocent for every ∞ guilty, of course.

Which is why the death penalty is terrible in its current form.

That form will never change.

 

[reckless]

The entire justice system most certainly does not profit from private prisons. Private prisons are an expense, and given the choice we would much rather lower incarceration rates and not send them there in the first place.



I quoted rates for the same crime because that's what's relevant when considering rehabilitation. If a criminal is arrested for violent assault, spends 5 years behind bars, is released but then re-arrested for minor drug crimes or technical parole violations, that doesn't mean he isn't rehabilitated.



Yeah, your information is not only laughably out of date, you fail to realize that REARREST and REINCARCERATION are two completely different statistics. One can be arrested without being incarcerated, and one can be incarcerated without being arrested (this usually for parole violations).

Here's a study from the PA department of corrections, where I am.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pennsylvania-department-of-corrections-releases-landmark-state-recidivism-study-193839961.html

The OVERALL recidivism rate is 60%. That means that within three years, 6 in ten are rearrested for some reason. This number sounds bad, until you dig deeper.



Technical parole violations are for things that are NOT illegal, but instead a violation of terms of parole. Entering a bar and drinking, leaving a geographic area, not checking in with a parole officer on time. These go straight to prison without being "arrested." Of those who ARE arrested, 3/4 of those are Part II offenses- and Part II offenses are almost all minor drug crimes.



18 states and the district of columbia have no death penalty. Of those states that do, it's rarely used relative to the amount of prisoners within the system. PA has a death penalty, but hasn't involuntarily executed anyone since the 1970s.

Keep in mind that the PRISON SYSTEM has nothing to do at all with who ends up with the death penalty, that's decided by a jury.

The entire justice system does indeed profit from our system of putting punishment over rehabilitation. More crimes= more cops= more funding= more judges= more lawyers= more correction officers etc...

So if a guy gets arrested for armed robbery once, gets lets out and then gets arrested for murder that counts as rehabilitation in your mind since its not the same crime?

I said it was hard to find more reliable up to date data quickly, then I edited in showing that 52% of people are re-incarcerated within 3 years. (from a 2006 study)

1 state is not really representative of the entire country and that comes from the Corrections office so of course they are going to try and make things look as good as possible.
While that 1994 study is pretty old, our prison system hasn't changed that much and it provides some important numbers that are hard to find elsewhere.
:Within 3 Years:
◦67.5 percent were rearrested (almost exclusively for felonies or serious misdemeanors)
◦46.9 percent were reconvicted

Even if the death penalty isn't used the whole point is that its supposed to act as a deterrent, and as punishment... along with those other things I mentioned.

The prison system is part of the justice system and that are both built primarily on retribution and punishment. If they weren't our prison system would look a lot more like Norway and we wouldn't have so many prisoners.

 

[Manmademan]

The entire justice system does indeed profit from our system of putting punishment over rehabilitation. More crimes= more cops= more funding= more judges= more lawyers= more correction officers etc...

The funding for corrections officers, police, etc comes from the state, and from taxpayers. There is a vested interest from the state and from taxpayers to keep this number as low as possible. Cops and judges don't set their own budgets. The legislature and governor do. Corrections (at least in my state) is UNDERFUNDED relative to the amount of prisoners we have. This is not the exception across the states, but the rule.

So if a guy gets arrested for armed robbery once, gets lets out and then gets arrested for murder that counts as rehabilitation in your mind since its not the same crime?

I see you have a reading comprehension problem. both armed robbery and murder would be "violent crime" and the individual would not be rehabilitated.

I said it was hard to find more reliable up to date data quickly, then I edited in showing that 52% of people are re-incarcerated within 3 years. (from a 2006 study)

1 state is not really representative of the entire country and that comes from the Corrections office so of course they are going to try and make things look as good as possible.

PA is the 6th largest state in the country, with over 50 thousand inmates in the state system. It's most CERTAINLY significant. And LOL at the secretary of corrections "cooking the numbers." Misrepresenting state statistics like that is a serious crime, and a lot of people would go to jail. Don't dismiss the message just because you disagree with the messenger.

While that 1994 study is pretty old, our prison system hasn't changed that much and it provides some important numbers that are hard to find elsewhere.
:Within 3 Years:
◦67.5 percent were rearrested (almost exclusively for felonies or serious misdemeanors)
◦46.9 percent were reconvicted

dude, you're clueless. it's night and day. in 1994 the PA prison system had less than 10 thousand inmates. it's quintupled since then and looks and operates nothing like the early 90s. Nationwide, non violent offenders, parole violators, and drug crimes make up the VAST MAJORITY of inmates and arrests, which was not the case in 1994. You also have not yet made the distinction between rearrest and reincarceration, which are not the same thing.

The prison system is part of the justice system and that are both built primarily on retribution and punishment. If they weren't our prison system would look a lot more like Norway and we wouldn't have so many prisoners.

Again, clueless. No one within the prison system has a job description of "punishment", yet a full third of the employees I have are dedicated towards rehabilitation, whether that be educational, substance abuse, or mental health treatment. Have you ever actually been IN a maximum security prison to see how it works, or are you repeating what you heard online?