Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Amaya wrote:I don't see anything inherently wrong with the death penalty in certain cases. Its a moral issue and morality is all relative.

What else are you going to do with serial killers, mass murderers, repeat sex offenders (rapists/child molesters), and other violent criminals?

I think the biggest objection to the death penalty isn't the morality of killing another human being, but the possibility of killing an innocent (which has happened plenty of times before). If new evidence comes up after 10 years in a prison sentence that person can be released, but if you kill them and they are proven innocent 10 years later it's not going to do them any good.

That is the biggest problem, but there are cases where the evidence is irrefutable and the fether actually admits it.

Samus_aran115 wrote:The prison system is a conspiracy. They use criminals to do dirt cheap labor and leave them entirely incapable of providing for themselves when they're released. Quite despicable.

I wish they actually used prisoners for cheap labor. Second part is partially accurate.

dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.

"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."

This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)

One of the primary problems is that the judicial system is inherently racist still. Black guy with weed gets charged with intent to sell. White guy gets charged with possession.

Considering that the ghetto has gotten markedly worse since the 60s, I'm convinced that left wing politicians are either idiots when it comes to dealing with that problem or actually want to keep minorities down.

The point about prisoners not being able to provide for themselves while out is a good one. Im not talking murders rapists and the like here but if someone gets arrested for robbery etc and cannot find any way to make a living once they are out the chances of them re offending are very high.

Bloody hell that is surprising.

All I know is "I'm to pretty to go to prison"
If given the choice of going quitely (then getting my teath smashed in and repetedly butt r****d) or running, I'd run, every time.

It's a system that while is broken it's the best thing we have that works. We can't mind wipe folks yet (ie; Babalyon 5's death of personality) and lobotomising them isn't an option we'll just have to keep locking them up.
The death penalty is barbaric, but and its a big but, that said there are times that the only punishment that is fitting to the crime is death (war crimes, mass murder and the like).

Personaly I think there should be a prison at the south pole, lets face it you can't escape from there on foot with out a whole host of survival gear and even then it wouldn't be fesible for your normal prisoner to know such ways of surviving in such a harsh place.
There you could just dump all of the rufuge of this planet and let them sort out the kiddie fiddlers and other deviants. Or enrole them into the armed forces
Sort of like this;

dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.

"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."

This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)

Whats so awesome is how you ignored the gulags, killing fields, and mass concentration camp that is the entire nation of North Korea.

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:US has 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. Oh, and prison workers get 25 cents an hour. and if they don't like it they get isolation. It has been referred to, quite significantly given the ethnic make up of the prison population, as slave labour.

"no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens."

This is what happens when you base policy of really serious matters on sports rules. Three strikes and you're out? why not 10 second stop-go penalty? (maybe like a sin-bin) Or let first service? (first offence? off you go) or free kick? (you robbed this person they get a free kick, into your gonads)

Whats so awesome is how you ignored the gulags, killing fields, and mass concentration camp that is the entire nation of North Korea.

I think that might count as a prison. And the fact that the US is not far behind them is frankly scary. I had thought the US prison population was closer to 400 to every 100,100. To be almost double that? And 4 times higher than most other Western countries?

LoneLictor wrote:I have a question. Why would you favor punishment as opposed to rehabilitation? I'm actually curious about this.

Rehabilitation has a very very very very very very high chance of failing (see the levels of crime in the UK...).

A dead person can't re-offend and shatter other people's lives.

I wish the UK wasn't a pussy and was more like America.

Mr Hyena wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:I have a question. Why would you favor punishment as opposed to rehabilitation? I'm actually curious about this.

Rehabilitation has a very very very very very very high chance of failing (see the levels of crime in the UK...).

A dead person can't re-offend and shatter other people's lives.

I wish the UK wasn't a pussy and was more like America.

This is why we can't have nice things, like referenda.

Mr Hyena wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:I have a question. Why would you favor punishment as opposed to rehabilitation? I'm actually curious about this.

Rehabilitation has a very very very very very very high chance of failing (see the levels of crime in the UK...).

A dead person can't re-offend and shatter other people's lives.

I wish the UK wasn't a pussy and was more like America.

Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:I have a question. Why would you favor punishment as opposed to rehabilitation? I'm actually curious about this.

Rehabilitation has a very very very very very very high chance of failing (see the levels of crime in the UK...).

A dead person can't re-offend and shatter other people's lives.

I wish the UK wasn't a pussy and was more like America.

This is why we can't have nice things, like referenda.

Referenda are distinctly undemocratic. They should be once in a lifetime things, if that.

Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.

Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)

Mr Hyena wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:I have a question. Why would you favor punishment as opposed to rehabilitation? I'm actually curious about this.

Rehabilitation has a very very very very very very high chance of failing (see the levels of crime in the UK...).

A dead person can't re-offend and shatter other people's lives.

I wish the UK wasn't a pussy and was more like America.

I favor punishment over rehabilitation. Nothing says don't do this again, like a nice caning.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.

Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)

You know, we could chop peoples hands off for theft, then they can't steal until they get really good with their feet.

@Joey How are referenda undemocratic? In comparison to a fundamentally two party system, decided on first past the post, with a second unelected chamber? In fact forget the comparison, how are referenda undemocratic?

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.

Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)

You know, we could chop peoples hands off for theft, then they can't steal until they get really good with their feet.

@Joey How are referenda undemocratic? In comparison to a fundamentally two party system, decided on first past the post, with a second unelected chamber? In fact forget the comparison, how are referenda undemocratic?

I wouldn't mind that...but the hippy part of the country (who are to blame for the monstrous level of crime in the UK) wouldn't like it. Something else would be required.

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.

Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)

You know, we could chop peoples hands off for theft, then they can't steal until they get really good with their feet.

@Joey How are referenda undemocratic? In comparison to a fundamentally two party system, decided on first past the post, with a second unelected chamber? In fact forget the comparison, how are referenda undemocratic?

Because in a democracy, the electorate (whoever that might be) vote for representatives. Those representatives then make, regulate and scrutinise laws.
The only political ideology in which the political opinions of the majority of the populace are enforced is populism, which since Greek times has always been accompanied by a Tyrant.
Democracies protect minorities by rule of law, populists do not.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Someone in prison also can't reoffend. Logic fail.

Which is why every crime needs to be for Life imprisonment minimum...for everything higher than petty theft (though some mechanism of stopping reoffending for petty theft is required)

Trolololol.

Trolololol.

It'd work. We wouldn't get cases of gang rape on women where the rapers get incredibly short (unjustly short for the crime) sentences (given how appeals work) like is currently the case.

And as said, its cheaper than capital punishment yet still prevents re-offending which is a blight on the UK.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Trolololol.

It'd work. We wouldn't get cases of gang rape on women where the rapers get incredibly short (unjustly short for the crime) sentences (given how appeals work) like is currently the case.

And as said, its cheaper than capital punishment yet still prevents re-offending which is a blight on the UK.

Some people get too leniant sentances, so everyone should get life all the time.
Right-wing logic

Mr Hyena wrote:
I wouldn't mind that...but the hippy part of the country (who are to blame for the monstrous level of crime in the UK) wouldn't like it. Something else would be required.

So rather than the vicious, reactionary gak that comes from the daily mail and the BNP and their ilk advocating hate and intolerance (strangely, attacks and abuse on the disabled have risen year on year since the right wing press started calling them scroungers, because they aren't quite disabled enough for their liking), or the criminals who, you know, actually commit crimes, the rise in crime is down to habitually non violent, inclusive people whose worst infraction is probably smoking a bit of weed, or maybe squatting a house.

So would you like to explain how "hippies" are causing this crime epidemic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
Because in a democracy, the electorate (whoever that might be) vote for representatives. Those representatives then make, regulate and scrutinise laws.
The only political ideology in which the political opinions of the majority of the populace are enforced is populism, which since Greek times has always been accompanied by a Tyrant.
Democracies protect minorities by rule of law, populists do not.

Brilliant point, I do feel that with sufficient education and moral and ethical schooling we could maybe make the right choices. But we are a long way from that.

Well my opinion, and it is only that an opinion, is that Life imprisonment is a waste of resources whilst the death penalty is a waste of life because of the problem with the inocent getting murdered . So we are screwed either way.

My personal solution is very black and white and would not be liked by most of you. I think that prison should be a punishment and as such the term should be relative to the crime but you should have a bed and a toilet and thats it. Basic meals only. 1 hour excersise each day. And that's it. No TV, Internet, Lottery, Telephones or anything else. Re-ofennders should get the exact same treatment. And if you happen to be caught a 3rd time for the same or similar crime then death because the puishment obviously didn't work.

The innocent would then not get the death penalty by accident and we wouldn't have to deal with stupid perople that thunk the rules don't apply to them.

Now I'll stand back and wait for people to tell me how wrong this is.

It is about ... I'd say mostly wrong.

Toast36 wrote:Well my opinion, and it is only that an opinion, is that Life imprisonment is a waste of resources whilst the death penalty is a waste of life because of the problem with the inocent getting murdered . So we are screwed either way.

My personal solution is very black and white and would not be liked by most of you. I think that prison should be a punishment and as such the term should be relative to the crime but you should have a bed and a toilet and thats it. Basic meals only. 1 hour excersise each day. And that's it. No TV, Internet, Lottery, Telephones or anything else. Re-ofennders should get the exact same treatment. And if you happen to be caught a 3rd time for the same or similar crime then death because the puishment obviously didn't work.

The innocent would then not get the death penalty by accident and we wouldn't have to deal with stupid perople that thunk the rules don't apply to them.

Now I'll stand back and wait for people to tell me how wrong this is.

Right behind you until the killing bit, prison should be difficult, but say a homeless person stole some fruit rather than starve, then again, then again,does that qualify as him being put to death?

So would you like to explain how "hippies" are causing this crime epidemic?

By removing the concept of discipline. Any attempt at increasing discipline, regardless of what it entails, is always shot down.

Look how damn hard it is to get an obviously troublesome kid removed from a school.

Some people get too leniant sentances, so everyone should get life all the time.
Right-wing logic

Its not some. Its the majority. But thats mainly due to 'good behaviour' idiocy.

We can't even get people to serve full sentences. How are we going to improve crime without that?

but say a homeless person stole some fruit rather than starve, then again, then again,does that qualify as him being put to death?

Its still a crime. There are a variety of homeless helping services. Theft is not the answer. Otherwise its discrimination against the majority.

dæl wrote:
Right behind you until the killing bit, prison should be difficult, but say a homeless person stole some fruit rather than starve, then again, then again,does that qualify as him being put to death?

Works for me.

Mr Hyena wrote:

but say a homeless person stole some fruit rather than starve, then again, then again,does that qualify as him being put to death?

Its still a crime. There are a variety of homeless helping services. Theft is not the answer. Otherwise its discrimination against the majority.

Asked and answered, there should be no reason to commit a crime in this day in age, there are allways alternatives. You just need to ask for the help. And don't get me wrong I think that after a stint in prison help should be available but if after going throught the system twice you decide to do it again if nothing else Darwinism suggests that you should be removed from the gene pool for shear stupidity.

Mr Hyena wrote:

So would you like to explain how "hippies" are causing this crime epidemic?

By removing the concept of discipline. Any attempt at increasing discipline, regardless of what it entails, is always shot down.

Look how damn hard it is to get an obviously troublesome kid removed from a school.

Some people get too leniant sentances, so everyone should get life all the time.
Right-wing logic

Its not some. Its the majority. But thats mainly due to 'good behaviour' idiocy.

We can't even get people to serve full sentences. How are we going to improve crime without that?

You don't "improve crime" by dealing with the aftermath, you deal with the cause. If what you believed about discipline and harsh sentencing was true then China would have zero crime, it doesn't. If you look at incarcerations and crime they are more prevalent in countries with greater inequality. This is why Denmark, Norway, Japan etc have such low crime rates and so few people in prison. The US has 737 prisoners per 100,000, the UK 139 per 100,000. Now Denmark and Norway have 59 per 100,000, Japan 55. You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion. Give people a stake in society and they have something to lose.

"If the young are not initiated into the village they will burn it down to feel it's warmth"

I'm all for improving crime.

You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion.

And how do we make this up to the good kids who have their lesson disrupted? Hmm? That is what I am concerned about - lack of discipline is contagious and not only that, but in a classroom environment has the effect of ruining other people's educations.

Growing up in a inner city school as an experience confirms this.

You don't "improve crime" by dealing with the aftermath, you deal with the cause.

That is a long term goal. Something needs to be done in the short term otherwise it is at the expense of the victims (who are already treated awfully in this country)

Mr Hyena wrote:

You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion.

And how do we make this up to the good kids who have their lesson disrupted? Hmm?

So your answer is to sent the child to another set of good kids then. Thats what expulsion is, palming off a problem somewhere else, its like NIMBYisn.

dæl wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

You raise the idea of expelling children, I'm pretty sure hippies didn't make the legislation surrounding that, but what do you hope to achieve by palming off a child that probably has quite serious issues in regards to trust of the outside world. You shouldn't be worried about exclusion, you should be trying for inclusion.

And how do we make this up to the good kids who have their lesson disrupted? Hmm?

So your answer is to sent the child to another set of good kids then. Thats what expulsion is, palming off a problem somewhere else, its like NIMBYisn.

I'm all for specialised schools/classrooms specifically for problem children, where lesson focus is on good integration.

Just not at the expense of good kids.

Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm all for specialised schools/classrooms specifically for problem children, where lesson focus is on good integration.

Just not at the expense of good kids.

Which wouldn't require expulsion, merely temporary segregation. Expulsion and good integration are mutually exclusive.

Which wouldn't require expulsion, merely temporary segregation. Expulsion and good integration are mutually exclusive.

A year minimum in these classes would probably be required to ensure no re-offending.

Expulsion would be required if setting up these classes takes money away from good, well-behaved kids as this still impacts on their quality of education.