Well, as I don't think many are going to take my advice and read the Fatal Shore, in responce to Jim's excellent post, and those who speak of choice, here is the point many social science scholars take from the book. Rehabilitation does not occure on an individual level often, it takes a society dedicated to fairness, which we are far from in America these days.
The Austrailian Colony was set up as a responce to the social instability caused by exicuting large numbers of excess population, put off the land because of the move from tenant farming, labour intesive, to industrialism, labour efficent - so large numbers of displaced former farmers where unable to find a place in society and pressed to steel, and were hanged for the price of a pig. It was believed that, after loosing the American colonies, England could turn a profit in Australia, they could not. It was hard to get into the interior and as a result, work camps became death camps, as the colonies could not sustain themselves, and shortly that was OK with Britain, better to kill the convicts slowly away from the eyes of family and friends. The death camps did little to lower the crime rate in England, and the convicts were so pressed that they resorted to canabalism often, in the camps. Then the interior of Australia was opened and the convicts were needed as farmers, with in the same generation the same convicts who were so dehumanised as to become canabals became judges police officers and politicians. The need for labourers created immagration from England and the crime rate droped. Now at the same time, why did England loose the American colonies, well, the rich planters, like Hamilton, were not alowed to industrialise, so they indulged in the drug deeling of their day, selling rum and whiskey, to create an ecconomy they could control, not unlike Nicky Barnes selling Heroin, and in order to mainstream that ecconomy, they rebelled, however, when the contenental army attempted to get an even shake in the new ecconomy, Shay's Rebellion, they were hanged by the aristocrates who rebelled to legalise their crimes. So it is not about complete poverty, it is about equal opportunity. Washington, Jefferson, Henry, slave owners and aristocrates spoke of the SLAVERY of English rule, as they could not compete equally with a rather inlightened government for its day. So if they could not be expected to behave, how can we hope for good behaveior from those in the US with such limits on opportunities that exist among the victems of innner city public schooling in the US. Lets stop concentrating on killing to keep people in line and democratize our ecconomy. that is it in a all too short nutshell
Larry