We'll never figure out how to do it because it's unethical to experiment on humans. But even more damning than that, we don't have a good theory of mind that explains criminality. It's all half-assed woowoo nonsense meant to bolster this or that political ideology.
Ah, yes, we never do that. All of our advancements in medical and psychological sciences just pop into existence out of no where!
> It's all half-assed woowoo nonsense meant to bolster this or that political ideology
Right. And your comments here aren't pushing an agenda at all. Definitely not a bigoted, inhumane agenda.
What do you propose? That if we can't rehabilitate, we don't bother to deter criminals, or to sequester them from society so they can do less harm, or even that we refuse to punish them thereby encouraging private vengeance? Is that why you irrationally hold onto the clearly mythical rehabilitation, because if we can't have that then we must also abandon the others but subconsciously you know what that shitshow would look like?
The world needs more thinking, not less, and it needs less feeling/empathy, not more.
There's no conclusive proof that even the death penalty deters crime: https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/fact-check/does-death-penalty-det...
> or to sequester them from society so they can do less harm
Sequestration with counseling and education would be useful. Unfortunately, we concentrate the convicted instead, which results in prisons functioning as colleges for criminality: https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/10/20/prison-c...
I don't think jails have to go through an IRB before they make changes.
A researcher would have a hard time getting an IRB to let them build a study at a jail where the jail treats a random half of the inmates in a different way. And judicial oversight might not allow that, either. Further, it's hard to control adequately.
We're going to be stuck with time series and case control studies of changes made haphazardly. It doesn't mean we can't get better, but it's a tougher hill to climb.