A- It is said

It is said, "A leopard cannot change its spots." This is one reason
why, in this country, wild animals like pumas, wolves, leopards and
lions are considered to be poor choices for personal house pets.
In my opinion, this 'rule' is also applied, by most of our society, to
those individuals who have broken the rules and boundaries established
by us for our mutual and personal protections.
As a society, and having the right to that same protection, we require
special registrations for anyone to possess one of those species deemed
'untamable'. In the same manner, those criminals deemed threatening to
us are required to maintain special registrations and restrictions in
order to assure us that their horrific behaviors are never
repeated.
When we are dealing with the animals, we take the necessary
precautions and are then willing to accept these creatures, with their
restrictions, as a part of our society. Sadly, I can report, we cannot
say the same thing about criminals that have been returned to our
society.
I cannot imagine any sane individual would even consider trying to
provoke, torment, abuse or attempt to terrorize an animal, wild by
nature, that had achieved a socially acceptable level of domestication
from years of training, while it lived amongst us. No one would want to
see an animal revert to the savage beast or witness the destruction it
would be capable of if they did such an insane act.
Yet very few within our society would even bother to attempt to resist
the urge to slur, reject, degrade, revile and even verbally or
physically abuse an individual labeled by our society as a
criminal.
Our fears, as a society allow us to pass laws to attempt to ensure
that we can protect ourselves. How then is it we can justify adding to
the burdens these individuals face, on a daily basis, often completely
in disregard of our self-same laws?
Few of these individuals feel legitimate remorse for their actions,
and are willing to accept the burden of responsibility for their
actions. They are faced with providing for themselves and their
families. They must deal with financial hardships brought about by past
actions, and years of separation from any exercise of what few
marketable skills they may have at one time possessed. While they seek
to return to our society and be allowed to rebuild the lives that led
to their previous behaviors in what they hope will be new and different
ways, their burdens are increased by our actions toward them.
Others' appear to remain the beasts we have labeled them, giving over
to their own self pity and self destruction as we shame them back into
the 'pens' we have built for their confinements.
It may be asked, what proof do I bring to my arguments about this
subject, and my response would be to suggest we look around us at our
own disregard for the very laws we say we are upholding.
Housing discrimination is outlawed in most of these 50 states. Yet
honestly answering yes to the question ' Have you ever been convicted
of a felony ' on a housing application will result in denial after
denial for adequate housing, no matter how many members of a family may
be displaced or become homeless as a result.
Most (so-called) equal opportunity employers are allowed to ask, "have
you ever been convicted of a felony". While the employment application
may state, "Answering yes to this question will not effect you chances
for employment here", no one even considers monitoring any company, in
our society, where disregarding said applications in favor of less
qualified applicants, is considered acceptable.
I propose that there are definitions that could explain this phenomenon
and that perhaps, as a society, we could consider those definitions and
decide what it is we are trying to achieve.
Shame can be described as self-destructive self pity, useless and empty
both because self destruction accomplishes nothing toward reparation
and the desire not to get caught again does nothing to change the core
problems that allowed the individual actions that led to criminal
behaviors in the first place.
Guilt, however, can be described as legitimate remorse, leading to
acknowledgement and acceptance of personal responsibility for the pain
and fear those actions have produced. With this acceptance of
responsibility the individual criminal is thereby enabled to use that
acceptance of painful remorse as a motivator for both personal change
and personal responsibility to ensure that such actions are no
repeated.
Do we, as a society, wish to continue to burden these individuals by
our attempts to shame them into behaviors acceptable to us, while
separating them from ourselves with labels, and decreased opportunity
for changing themselves?
Or are we ready to assist them in learning to accept the responsibility
for their own actions, leading to changes that will decrease the rates
of recidivism and might relieve us of having to treat our fellow human
beings worse than we do mere animals?