Like lamprey263 pointed out, your idea focuses heavily on rehabilitativefunction of a punishment.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are other functions that one should have in mind when thinking about punishments and / or criminal law in general.
To name a few, I would say that deterrence / prevention and incapacitation of perpetrator / protection of society are just as important as rehabilitation, if not more. And in both regards, your idea leaves a lot to be desired as it:
1. does not deter potential perpetrators from comitting crimes - really, imagine what a potential perpetrator would think while deciding whether to commit a crime or not, if he knew that the "punishment" he would receive, would be placing in some loving and caring family instead of being placed in a prison...
2. does not incapacitate criminals from committing other crimes (especially against law abiding citizens) - as others have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the very next victims of some criminal wouldn't be the members of a family he would be placed in. When the criminals are in prisons, at least they mostly can't directly commit crimes against non-criminals, but could some family guarantee the same thing? I doubt it.
Besides, like you said, in many instances it could be the case that some families would have to be forced to take criminals in. That would be a violation of their rights right there. And for what reason? Because somebody else committed some crime?
And that brings me to the another function of a punishement - retribution, which is mostly there to assure the society that crimes indeed are bad deeds and that "reward" for them will be something unpleasant for the perpetrator. In your case however, it would be the family who would receive the most unpleasant part of the punishment and it is questionable if given their previous situation, many criminals would even view such measures as punishment and therefore their behaviour as something that society disapproves.
Log in to comment