Do rapist need to rape or do they nature that way?
Obviously they run the gamut. Some are indeed sociopaths, either because of a glitch in their DNA, or because when their parents were supposed to be teaching them how to grow up as civilized beings, they had other priorities.
Others are simply assholes. But it's not a whole lot easier to reform an asshole than to reform a sociopath.
If they just rape but they are good by nature . . . .
What??? How can a person who routinely performs what is arguably the most evil of all crimes (some women who have been raped say they'd rather be dead) be categorized as "good by nature?" This is as dumb as describing someone with the words, "he kills people he doesn't like, but otherwise he's good by nature." Or, "he sets houses on fire for entertainment, but he's really good by nature."
I thank its perty clear to many that lower animals dont deserve punishment.
Nonetheless, many of them damage the fabric of our civilization just as badly as humans who commit serious crimes.
Some actually kill humans for food: polar bears, grizzlies, alligators, sharks, wolverines (Europeans call them "gluttons"), cougars and other large felids. Others kill us without meaning to but we're just as dead: Bison are responsible for more deaths than any other non-human animal in the USA and deer are a close second; in both cases the mode is collision with cars.
We don't "punish" these animals by giving them a time-out the way we would punish a naughty puppy, but in fact we simply kill them to keep their numbers down, and we especially cull the ones who seem to like walking across highways.
Others are environmental disasters. Wild boar are denuding the landscape of plants in several states, and they breed so prolifically that hunting doesn't help. Canada geese are overrunning the American Northeast, eating the shrubbery and replacing it with a layer of feces. Deer show up on this list too, making it impossible for homeowners to have lawns and gardens, and since they're happy to live in suburbia it's not practical to hunt them.
Many of these disasters are our own doing. We virtually annihilated the wolf population in much of the USA, and coyotes moved in to fill the vacancy. However, since they're smaller than wolves they also compete with foxes, who used to lunch on rodents. The thriving rodent population is now infested with deer ticks, the primary vector for Lyme disease.
In other words, there are a lot of animals that damage civilization. Whether we call it "punishment" or "repairing our own stupid damage to the ecosystem," we have to kill them.
I thank more an more its bein realized that people are victims of circumstance . . . .
Agreed, certainly.
. . . . and don't deserve punishment.
Uh, no. Virtually
nobody will agree with you on that except a few kooks... and, of course, the perpetrators themselves. Whether you call it "punishment" or "rehabilitation," we still have to do it to prevent civilization from unraveling.
The younger the perpetrators, the more hopeful we are that we can rehabilitate them, and most jurisdictions try to separate kids under 18 from the hard-cases in the county jail. We send them off to probation camps where (it's claimed) the things they were supposed to learn in school and from their families, but didn't, will be taught to them.
an even wit that intellectual realization punishment will still be around... wit all the jugmental people... Police... courts... jails... etc... but hopfully "punishment" will be more humane durin the slow process of bein phased out an replaced wit understandin an rehibilation.!!!
You don't seem to know very much about the success rate of rehabilitation. People who have not done anything illegal or even seriously bad spend zillions of dollars on psychotherapy, hoping to be "cured." Many of them actually do come out much better, if not completely healed. But many, many more don't.
Now imagine how effective those same therapeutic techniques are on someone who thinks it's okay to kill people in order to confiscate their assets?
