The Debate

To help understand the bigger picture of the world this play was set in, we had a debate on whether or not harsh punishments were necessary for convicts and whether or not they could be reformed. We were split into halves for this debate, one side for harsh punishments and one side against.

Those arguing for this treatment towards the convicts were trying to make the point that without serious punishment the convicts wouldn't take officers seriously and there may be an uproar from them if they begin to gain to much power. Once a convict has committed a crime, they will continue as it becomes a habitual thing for them and they know no better. It becomes somewhat an instinctual thing that they pass down through generations and all the rehabilitation in the world wouldn't change that. It's like taking a wolf from the world it knows and trying to tame it; it will take generations to happen at all.

Those arguing against (I was in this half) argued that convicts only committed crimes because they had no other choice. Back in Britain where they stole things or the women sold themselves it wasn't out of choice, they had to. If they didn't they'd have been homeless and probably have died of starvation or illness. They may have had families to provide for or just fir themselves but it's partially down to material deprivation. They didn't have what they needed to live - deprived of this -  and had no other choice but to steal.
When it comes to how you punish them and being able to rehabilitate them to become respectable members of society, you need to remember that you get what you put in and if all you do to them is give them harsh punishments and abuse them all the time then you can't expect much of them. Those who are aggressive are like that because they need to defend themselves, being kind to your gaolers doesn't get you far.
However, if you treat them with kindness and patience, they will slowly respond to your attitudes and become more cooperative. Despite their lack of education, they can still be educated and grow to be more than you expect because everyone is capable of the same thing.

This debate didn't get far because the fire alarm went off.

But I personally go against harsh punishment and believe that criminals can be reformed. I think we were all on this side but the society of the 17th century and today's society are very different. Back then you had the rich and the poor, it wasn't questioned and they were two different worlds. The upper class didn't make any attempts at trying to understand and help those living in poverty because they probably believed that this was where they belonged and it could not be changed. They believed that they were a lot less intelligent than they but the poor were never given any chances of going up the social ladder and becoming part of the upper class unlike today where we have many opportunities, government schemes, free education, ect. For those who are juveniles, in units or anything likewise they are given chances of reformation and becoming successful but whether they take these chances is down to their discretion.
If treatments of the convicts were brought back and those in such positions were punished that way the public would be shocked and there would be an inevitable uproar, but could it change the way people behave? If it did, it would be out of pure fear. The shock would change things but we in our modern society are a lot more free than the convicts of the 17th century and if people had their rights taken from them like that I suppose it would make us all rethink about what we have and what we take for granted.