Rehabilitation carried the vote comfortably, but the chamber did not endorse leniency. The floor’s most-respected Yes case drew the boundary plainly: “Offenders who can be rehabilitated should be, but criminals must face proper sentences for their crimes.”
Those backing Yes argued that idleness and neglect feed the cycle they are meant to break. The next-highest-rated argument called locking people up without support “a revolving door of crime”, while another voter questioned whether programmes offered “employable skills” rather than simply “painting, poetry and psychology”.
No voters were more numerous in the discussion, but their arguments earned less respect overall. Their case ran from the blunt maxim that “The harder the punishment the better the lesson learned” to doubts that habitual offenders can change, with one former prison worker saying rehabilitation courses “made no difference at all”; others favoured harsher deterrence, longer terms and, in one grim contribution, the rope.
The two sides often answered different questions. Yes voters focused on addiction, education, employment and support after release; No voters focused on consent, repeat offenders and whether rehabilitation should ever reduce time served, while a conditional Yes voice summed up the room’s underlying qualification: “YES But only if prisoners are made to engage with them.”
The verdict was therefore a vote for rehabilitation as practical crime prevention, not as a substitute for punishment. Its real demand was for a prison system that can do both.
18 Opinions
We have tried rehabilitation for facades and proved that we cannot manage to do it. Let’s try punishment and deterrence for a change - and for the most serious crimes - the rope. That stops reoffending - dead.
Rehabilitation should prepare prisoners for a functional life after they've served the original sentence. Rehabilitation shouldn't be motivated by reduced time served. It hasn't been proved that saying sorry lessens the risk of reoffending. There have been recent miscarriages of justice where people couldn't say sorry for something they didn't actually do, and were dumped out of prison with no support at all. Prisons should focus on practical help for a fresh start.
Probably not, but they are likely misconceived. There are those who might benefit but they probably should not be in prison in the first place. The ‘wronguns’’ will just go back to what they know. Some will be frequent flyers others well maybe we should revisit judicial history for deterrents.
We dont have the best rehabilitation programme far from it, its under funded. We have one of the highest in europe reoffender rates because of this and also because of the lack of support after leaving prison. Our highest reoffenders are young offenders who usually have little to no work experience Upon leaving you are homeless, cannot get a job ect... so of course they are going to reoffend to have a roof over their head and food on their plate. Its a broken system.
Offenders who can be rehabilitated should be, but criminals must face proper sentences for their crimes. Some offenders should face much longer sentences than they currently do.
While I don't doubt that they do some good, they don't seem to have an effect on the habitual criminals, who constantly reoffend, and are then imprisoned again and again.
YES But only if prisoners are made to engage with them.
Well as they’re hardly serving any time for heinous crimes I don’t suppose there would be time for meaningful engagement with rehabilitation.
Reoffending is generally not because of what happens in prison, it is generally because they are released from prison, with next to no support. Employment opportunities significantly reduced because companies don't want to hire someone who has been in prison.
Since the alternative is prisoners in their cells for 22 hours, I have to say yes. But I wonder about the content of these rehab programmes. Are they learning employable skills, or just painting, poetry and psychology...