I was reading Brad's article about Barak Obama, and one of his comments got me to thinking: should imprisonment be about rehabilitation?

My answer is simple: Yes...and no,

See, it's not really as simple as a black and white issue. This is an area where there are quite definitely shades of grey. And it would be in our best interests to acknowledge them.

Brad is absolutely, 100% right that the PRIMARY purpose of prisons is to get bad guys off the streets. And that primary purpose should trump all if it conflicts with rehabilitation, education, and other aims. One of the core functions of government is to ensure domestic tranquility, and the prison system, imperfect as it is, is far superior to an anarchaic vigilante government.

So let's start by saying we agree with the core objective here. What happens, though, once the prison door closes behind that inmate is another matter entirely.

We can choose to warehouse that criminal, but unless we are committed to either lifetime incarceration or the death penalty, we need to deal with the sobering thought that that criminal will one day be released in society. What we do with them while they are serving their sentence can affect the society into which they are released greatly. If we simply warehouse them, all we will get is an ex-con with a lot of street smarts. And recidivism is a virtual guarantee.

We can and should take a proactive approach to dealing with the inmate, though. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to separate the "lifers" from the other criminals. Put the lifers away in a super supermax prison (my proposal: somewhere in the most barren part of Alaska, where escape itself is a death penalty). Once they are locked away, we've removed the prisoners who have no incentive for improvement because they know they'll never see the light of day again.

Take the remaining prisoners and separate them according to their various offenses. Treatment carries no incentive for them; it is expected of them. The alternative to participating in treatment is to serve their sentence in "the hole" segregated from the rest of the inmates, where they have less opportunity to infect the others with their bad behaviour. Deal with programs that have a reasonable success rate, and work with new programs only when they have been well vetted. The idea is that, once released, these prisoners are without excuse, because they've had opportunities to turn their life around.

Once a good rehabilitation plan is under way, then it is appropriate to implement a "three strikes" law. Third time in, bucko, and you're getting thrown in with the mother stabbers and father rapers in the wilds of Alaska, no chance for parole.

After a couple decades of such a program, consistently implemented, I could see the crime rate dropping dramatically. I have serious doubts that most prisoners would want to spend their lives in a harsh, cold environment, and would be moved to self improvement because of the possibility. And if not, well, they'll have their bunk waiting for them, won't they?