I saw another video of five teens who liked throwing heavy rocks over a busy overpass. They had done this more than once. Of course, they ended up killing someone, after which text messages were exchanged with much LOL and LFMOA and HAHAHA. Apparently, they had pre-planned some kind of defense where everyone would agree that the eldest of the bunch was the only one throwing the rocks, as well. The four youngest got a year of probation. The eldest got three and a quarter years in prison. He's out and the rest are long clear of their probation.
I am unsure what could be done to rehabilitate these individuals rather than merely coercing lip service from them.
Of course, not all inmates are psychopathic, but 15-25% manifest those traits, according to https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/ce-corner-psychopathy.
It's not clear that everyone who displays some of those traits is going to display all the others, that a pattern of risky violence means someone is automatically beyond help, that the stats on psychopaths aren't including lots of people with other underlying problems that fully explain their behaviour, or that anyone else who goes to a therapist is doing anything radically different from simulating normal human behaviour.
the reference I gave is not pop science.
Your debunking and pooh-pooh'ing is unpersuasive. This is a professional association publishing that, and they do have shrinks in prison.
"About 1.2% of U.S. adult men and 0.3% to 0.7% of U.S. adult women are considered to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. Those numbers rise exponentially in prison, where 15% to 25% of inmates show these characteristics (Burton, B., & Saleh, F. M., Psychiatric Times, Vol. 37, No. 10, 2020). "
Your reference has no bearing on the answer to that question and in fact notes that 30% of the population display some traits of psychopathy, which is the entire point here. If you squint hard enough, you can label 30% of the population as psychopaths; if you're also convinced it's useless to send them to therapy, you can use the label to deny them mental health care and stick them in prison.
I'm worried that a broad and underspecified definition of psychopathy combines with an overstated inability to treat them, in a way that is morally bankrupt and tantamount to just giving up.
The weakest in society are those who are taken advantage of by the morally bankrupt, not the morally bankrupt themselves.
However, I agree that what we are currently doing is worse than almost every alternative.
Involve CPS with all the teenagers.
The woman probably had other things in her life that caused her to end up with that remorseless of a personality - granted I suspect a part of this might also just be the American general tendency to take rights as "fuck you got mine", instead of "we have to share this place together", which might be hard to deal with (assuming this is US).
The teenagers probably had inattentive parents or a bad school life, which turned them to doing shit that is pretty much harassing people that eventually would get someone killed. It sounds almost certain like there's secondary circumstances involved - petty theft is usually scared out (since teenagers tend to do it because of the "taboo", the fact that most kids don't see real consequences of their actions until then and finally that it's seen as the least egregious crime that isn't like... a speeding violation or a parking ticket), but if that defense is as you say, it sounds more deliberate and more deeply rooted.
Crimes are sometimes a symptom of other things, not the cause.
You are not going to teach a mindless drunk driver by indicating to them, via a state-employed official, that "someone cares about them". You're not going to convince a teenager that hurting people is wrong by having them speak to a social worker with a caseload. Children learn their moral systems from years of active and passive indoctrination into their parents' and peers' culture. If you want to reorient someone's moral compass by instilling values that no one ever taught them, and are not present in the culture in which they live outside of prison, you're going to need something a hell of a lot more potent than regular appointments with a therapist.
> Crimes are sometimes a symptom of other things, not the cause.
Chronic criminality is the result of moral systems that are calibrated and reinforced by violent and uncivilized cultures. This goes doubly for "rich" criminals, who display their immoral behavior through war and the stock market. Reforming a petty criminal or a serial abuser is as difficult as reforming a corporate executive taking kickbacks. They don't see a problem with it.
It's pretty crazy to blame the current situation on reformers. In reality it's the war on drugs and "tough on crime". I know a lot of normally reasonable people who think prisoners deserve to be raped in prison and don't deserve health care.
I view prison reform as the most important--not among the most important, the most important--step in beginning to change modern US society for the better. I know many prison activists and was raised in a culture of people who volunteered in prisons and in legal efforts to reform prisons and assist prisoners. They are too sympathetic and the way they frame their cause reduces the amount of support they receive from the general public.
If you were to convince me that it was 100% possible, and the rehabilitated criminals become productive members of our society, that would make me support it less, not more.
How about someone who’s been sentenced for stealing, which they did in order to feed their kids? They dropped out of high school, and have never held down a steady job. Do you genuinely believe it’s better to further smack them down with a criminal justice system that will prevent them getting a job in the future, rather than having them leave prison qualified to do something productive?
Current valid defenses against a charge of larceny include amking an honest mistake, being mentally incapacitated, and having the intention to restore. If you believe that "immediate physical need even without an intention to restore" should be a valid defense against this criminal charge as well, I'm with you. I don't think we disagree on that. The law does, but it's much easier to convince people that certain specific acts should not be considered criminal than to convince them of the justness of rehabilitating actual criminals.
So, as far as I can tell, such examples have no bearing on the question of rehabilitation at all: why would we need to rehabilitate somebody who's not guilty in the first place?!
If somebody is guilty of a crime, however, how could eventually letting a perpetrator return to society, get a job and do something productive _not_ be a further unjust act against the victim?
Almost everybody agrees that the state helping perpetrators of a crime to get revenge on their victims would be twisted and heinous. I'm sure you agree too.
But living well is the best revenge, and that's exactly what rehabilitation is: preparing an incarcerated offender to live well (function as a law-abiding member of the society) after their release, and by that further torment their victims.