Probably the noblest and most humane purpose of punishment in the criminal law is rehabilitation. When a citizen's criminal tendencies are "cured" (in a manner of speaking) so that he or she never has the urge to commit crime again and, even further, becomes a productive member of society, then society is not only protected from future harm but it's also made richer by the successful re-entry of one of its members. It's a win-win situation in which both society and criminal offenders benefit.
Idealogically, rehabilitation is a very sound goal for punishment. It's pleasant and beautiful to imagine the successful general rehabilitation of society's criminals. If only adult criminals could be successfully rehabilitated, then the phenomenon of crime could be all but eliminated, and criminal offenses restricted from then on to juvenile delinquency and the occasional act of passion.
Ah, if only. While few seriously argue against the utility of reforming criminal offenders, there are powerful arguments against placing too much importance on rehabilitation, not the least of which is that it tends not to work. In 1994, over sixty percent of criminal offenders who were released from U.S. correctional facilities were arrested again within three years or less. Fifty percent went back into the system. High recidivism rates are a powerful argument against the effectiveness of rehabilitation in the criminal law. It is time-consuming and dubious effort to meaningfully reform serious criminals, and it costs more for tax-payers. However fine and noble the idea of reforming criminals into productive members of society may be, the statistics alone speak out strongly against the attempt.
On the other hand, it is probably a bit much to argue that criminal offenders are fundamentally unworthy of the efforts of rehabilitation, and that it's good for them to suffer for what they've done without any help or reprieve. Perhaps. In the real world, many criminals may be truly un-reformable, and any attempt to rehabiliate them would be a waste of effort and resources. Also, the pain of crime victims and their loved ones cannot be ignored or reasoned away, and to deny them some feeling of satisfied vengeance could be seen as an abject failure of the justice system. But, all things considered, it is at least feasable for a society that cherishes the precept "innocent until proven guilty" to some day place equal value on the precept "reformable until proven otherwise." Of course, the only way to prove this is to try.
The right expression is bolded in each sentence and the sentence is then translated into English so you understand what it means.
A) La comida frita es <u>peor que</u> la asada(roasted) para la salud(health).
- Fried food is <u>worse than</u> roasted for your health.
B) La leche es <u>mejor que</u> la soda para la salud(health).
- Milk is <u>better than</u> soda for your health.
C) La serpiente <u>más larga que</u> es el pollito.
- The snake is <u>longer than</u> the chicken.
D) El pescado es <u>tan saludable como</u> el pollo para la salud.
- Fish is <u>as healthy as</u> chicken for your health.
E) Carlos tiene 10 años y Alejandro tiene 17 años. Carlos es <u>menor que</u><u> </u>Alejandro.
- Carlos is 10 years old and Alejandro is 17 years old. Carlos is<u> younger than</u> Alejandro.
F) La jirafa es <u>más alta que</u> la gallina.
- The giraffe is <u>taller than</u> the chicken.
G) La cebra es <u>tan alta como</u> el caballo.
- The zebra is <u>as tall as</u> the horse.
H) Sofia tiene 6 años y Marisol tiene 9 años. Marisol es <u>mayor que </u>Sofia.
- Sofia is 6 years old and Marisol is 9 years old. Marisol is <u>older than </u>Sofia.
Yo soy bajito.
Ellos son feos.
Tú estas enfermo.
Estamos tristes.
Ella es alta.
