In Norway, they have crazy stories about the people they were able to rehabilitate.

One guy cut up several people with a chainsaw. By the time he got out of prison, he had a job as a lumberjack.

Repeating offenders and most importantly pedophiles and rapists that do the exact same crime are a good example of that. Whoever is responsible for letting a pedophile out of jail should be held accountable for not doing their job well enough.

TL;DR - Even the most hardcore criminals (e.g., mass murderers) can sometimes be rehabilitated. The trouble is allocating enough and appropriate resources for the rehabilitation, sometimes to people who don't want to be helped.

• There is evidence that rehabilitation for criminals--even hardcore ones--can work.

• A possible problem with rehabilitation is that people have to want to be helped, especially those offenders who are not necessarily certifiably mentally ill. Those people who don't wish to be helped may take full responsibility for their actions and might not care or want to change at all. (Perhaps, it could be argued, it's only that they think they can't change. Either way, it's still a problem in terms of being rehabilitated.)

• Finally, even given all this potential for rehabilitation, in an effort to avoid repeat offenders, emergence into society will oftentimes not be the best option. What to do in these cases besides lifetime, sometimes highly-restrictive imprisonment remains unclear to me, so for now I am of mixed opinion.

Further reading: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/rehab.html

Yes. Some people are a waste of time to bother trying to better them. But because we aren't gods who can peer perfectly into the minds of every convict, we can never EVER act like we know for a fact that someone can't be rehabilitated. No matter how bad they are currently.

Think about how different you are from 5 years ago. or 15 years ago. What might change for you, 30 years from now? Probably a lot.

Are there crimes you can never come back from?

There are certain crimes that people commit that I don’t think that people can be rehabilitated from.

For example, mass shooters, child rapists, gang leaders and human traffickers. These people have, in my opinion, crossed the Rubicon of society to a different, darker and more dangerous place. There is something in some crimes that I think you can’t come back from.

The power they have felt, the disregard for human life, the atrocities you have committed are too far for you to ever be part of a regular society or to ever be fully rehabilitated.

Ultimately, it comes down to the perception of criminals and the nature of the crime

• First of all, it depends on whether you think people are inherently good or inherently evil. If man is good, then all criminals can be rehabilitated and their crimes are mistakes that can be fixed. If man is determined to be flawed or evil, then rehabilitation serves no purpose as they will still be evil despite trying to make up for their crimes.

• Recidivism rates will affect a person's ability to be rehabilitated. For instance, for sentences under 12 months, [the recidivism rate] (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872390/bulletin_Jan_to_Mar_2018.pdf) is 62%. The most common reoffending crime is theft. This is easier to rehabilitate in comparison to murder or assault, as it mainly relates to income.
  Depends on the crime and how early law enforcement intervenes

Citizens have to live in fear of savage criminals who repeatedly commit crimes or attack others because we refuse to do what must be done.
When there's a leaky hose, the fool continuously mops up the water. The wise man shuts off the spigot.
Career criminals exist. Some humans are messed up and their lives revolve around hurting other people. We lose good people every day to senseless crime, and often times there are red flags and it could have been spotted from a mile away.

Are some individuals genetically dispositioned to be criminals?

• The nature vs nurture debate concerns whether behaviours are learned through one’s environment (nurture) or is behaviour biologically determined (nature).
• If we take it to be nature that determines behaviour, it would be a waste of time to try and rehabilitate criminals. The purpose of rehabilitation is to correct behaviours and allow one to live a law-abiding life. However, can we correct a behaviour that is genetic?
• For example. Jacobs XYY. This theory suggests there is a link between criminality and an abnormal chromosomal pattern. Those with the XYY chromosome have been studied to be more aggressive and inclined to violence. Studies also suggest that XYY men are overrepresented in the prison system with there being 15 sufferers per 1000 people in prison, in comparison with 1 sufferer per 1000 in the general population.
• Serial killers John Wayne Gacy and Arthur Shawcross both had the XYY chromosome pattern.
• On the opposite side of the debate, rehabilitation would be a useful method for criminals. If behaviours are learned then correcting such behaviours with an efficient rehabilitation plan would work.
• Under skinners operant conditioning. This theory upholds the view that behaviours can be modified through positive and negative reinforcement. Rewarding positive behaviour and punishing negative behaviour allows one to associate a particular course of action with the corresponding consequence.
• The Incentive and Earned Privileges System
  Rewards prisoners when they display positive behaviour and punishes negative behaviour. Such rewards include additional visits and TV privileges. Punishments however include reduced visits and loss of access to the canteen
• Depending on which stance you take on the debate may alter your position of whether rehabilitation is useful.