Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[Roland]

Whether it is applied in practice 100% of the time or not, the fact is that in the eyes of the law you are rehabilitated once you are released from prison.

In the eyes of the law? That could be a naive statement, depending on how you take it, or rather, how you meant it. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the words and texts written and followed, I'd agree with you. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the individuals who enforce the laws, you're naive, and I don't mean that to sound insulting.

I hate to sound too cynical, but it IS naive to think that all people who "enforce" (note I did not say "uphold"; there's a reason for that) the law do so equally, and with the idea that "in the eyes of the law, my eyes, you are rehabilitated once you are released from prison". Laws are created and controlled by humans. Humans are fallible. Thus, laws, ultimately, are fallible. This is why many rapists, murderers, and other heavy-weighted criminals are given sentences far below what they probably should be given (I say this as a matter of opinion, not fact, but also as a matter of looking at the laws as written, and looking at precedence). Corruption abounds, and it is naive to think it doesn't (not that I am insinuating that you do), although it is equally naive (or perhaps ignorant is a better word) to think corruption is all there is. I do not doubt that there are criminals who get out of jail long before they are "rehabilitated". I also do not doubt that some criminals can NEVER be "rehabilitated". But look at this: by your own admission, and indeed as very fact, there are limits as to how long a sentence someone can be given for any crime. Because of this very fact, it is impossible for all criminals to be "rehabilitated once their sentence is up", as you state as fact, even in a "perfect" world where all criminals can, as a matter of fact, be rehabilitated (another naive fallacy, but one we don't need to touch upon any more). The fact that all humans are different, have different makeups, different needs, different strengths and weaknesses, makes it entirely impossible for a "one-size-fits-all" punishment to guarantee that a criminal is rehabilitated once their sentence is up, combined with the checks and balances imposed upon the legal system to ensure as little abuse as possible will occurr.

I believe it is this that Ghostiger, however uneloquently, is trying to point out as an intellectual... what did he call it again? It escapes me at the moment, but you understand my point. Now, I could be wrong about Ghostiger's intent, as I am only guessing, but I believe this is what he meant. And, indeed, he would be right, but unlike him, I point out both sides of the available views on your stance. To reiterate: if you are stating that all criminals are rehabilitated once their sentence is up as it relates to the laws as written (putting a tangible face on an intangible idea), then I can certainly agree with that, given the limitations of our legal system. However, if you believe that all criminals are rehabilitated once their sentence is up, regardless of crime or length of sentence (or any other factor, for that matter), that it is the end, period, then I shall have to politely disagree, and refer you to my above arguments against such an illogical fallacy.

Now, it's my guess (just like my guess about Ghostiger's point) that you mean the former, and not the latter. But, given that you did not clarify further your stance on the issue (maybe you shouldn't have to, but as has been said, words can have very different meanings, as I tried to point out as best I could in this post), it is possible for someone (like Ghostiger) to be confused on your stance, simply because one statement can mean several things, each entirely opposed to the other.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm dragging you back into this discussion. I just wanted to post on your last point, as even I had questions about your true stance that I could not answer for myself with any certainty without asking further questions (and doing my best to explain where my questions were arising from).

As for my opinion on the matter of rehabilitation versus punishment, I'm going to stay out of it. It's far too late and I am far too tired to make any further remarks on the subject, not to mention that I'm not even sure how or where I would place myself on the scale. I do believe rehabilitation is possible for some, or at least preferable to outright punishment (i.e. in the case of the truly mentally deranged / deficient; if someone who is mentally handicapped murders someone, but truly does not understand the concept of murder, or is instead incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong enough to keep from doing right and wrong {ala the part in The Village where Mr. Fiance is hurt by Mr Handicapped}, I do not believe being tossed into jail with the rest of criminal society serves any useful purpose, to anyone involved) in certain cases. However, I do not believe at all that all criminals can be rehabilitated, and so I do believe that some criminals, most notably repeat offenders of the worst crimes (i.e. serial killers), should not ever be let loose upon society again. I suppose, to be concise, I believe a combination of punishment and rehabilitation should be the general order when dealing with crime, but I cannot claim to have any answers for that idea.

But as I said, I'm too tired to make any strong points about my feelings on the matter, so I'm leaving it where it stands now. To summarize: rehabilitation AND punishment, hand in hand, for most, with strict removal from society for those deemed unrepairable (serial killers, for one example), and strong rehabilitation (and removal of a different form, if needed) for those who are simply incapable (not unwilling; big difference) of functioning in society as a "normal" human being (mentally handicapped, for one example). In my mind, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but I don't particularly believe in vengeance as the proper course of action (though I certainly couldn't be stopped from feeling the want, or even need, for vengeance should a crime occur to me; I just would do my best to rise above such basic urges, as in the end, they serve no good, and fulfilling them would only leave me hollow and degenerated).

Boy, what an unintentionally long post. I think I need to go to bed now. :P Sorry for being so verbose (I'm looking at you here Occhi :P).

Edit:
Cleaned up the first paragraph to look a little more polite, and better represent what I was actually trying to say, rather than give a better chance of it looking like I'm just being a jerk. :P