I answered that I agree with that one because while rehabilitation is the goal, it has been demonstrated that in some cases, it is not even possible. I'm not sure exactly what that question was meant to determine either. Even those who are convinced that all criminals should have the opportunity at rehabilitation to become a contributing member of society must have to acknowledge studies which prove it will not always, and in some cases known in advance to fail, work. In that case, is it a waste of taxpayer money to attempt it? Is there any point where the crime is so terrible that rehabilitation is out of the question? And then of course there was the question on the death penalty. Obviously if someone is on deathrow (whether you agree with the death penalty or not) why should any attempt to rehabilitate be made?


>>http://politicalcompass.org/
>>http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/libvsconserv.htm
>
>The first link was interesting. However, I have some doubts about the validity of its statements/questions.
>
>The home page says "there's no right, wrong or ideal response". However, one of the statements is "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals." My understanding, based on popular/lay synopses I've read of research by Robert Hare is that, in the case of certain psychopaths at least, this statement is literally true. So I'm not sure what this statement/question would be measuring.