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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Best not lock them up either, the poor dears might be miserable

Certainly, locking someone up is inherently regrettable. However we can't simply let a proven danger, in this case the actions of murderer go on unchecked. In this way it becomes apparent that there is no alternative to changing that individuals circumstances such that they can no longer present a danger to others. In practical terms at least given our current circumstances this means constricting their freedoms and removing them from the general population. We should still aim to do so in a way that minimizes human suffering, and certainly in a way avoids anyone getting killed.

Murder is an awful thing already. Let's not use as an excuse for more inhumanity.

 Fafnir wrote:
Our universe exists as it does on even shakier probability. So the point is, would you accept the possibility of it happening? Of course I'm serious, because what you propose would admit such a possibility to happen in the first place. Whether it be you, someone you know, or someone entirely unknown to you should be irrelevant, all that matters is that the possibility exists.

So I'm not allowed to decide if someone should be executed because of personal feelins. But I am allowed to decide if hypothetically a family member should be tried and have a minuscule chance of being executed because I have personal feelings.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:
Certainly, locking someone up is inherently regrettable. However we can't simply let a proven danger, in this case the actions of murder go on unchecked. In this way it becomes apparent that there is no alternative to changing that individuals circumstances such that they can no longer present a danger to others. In practical terms at least given our current circumstances this means constricting their freedoms and removing them from the general population. We should still aim to do so in a way that minimizes human suffering, and certainly in a way avoids anyone getting killed.

Murder is an awful thing already. Let's not use as an excuse for more inhumanity.

But you stated that they should not be made miserable, which is it?
So it's more humane to lock someone up for life, give them nothing to lose and put them in with other prisoners and guards that they can harm? That's humane??

Life without parole accomplishes what we want (murderer off the street) and minimizes the consequences of mistakes (execute innocent person) relative to the severity of the need. And since it is not a permanent and unrecoverable punishment, we can use the regular non-automatic appeals system without the constitutional problem that necessitated automatic appeals in death penalty cases.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Bottom line is that our system is not perfect enough to have non-reversible punishments.

Prison time is irreversible. You can't give those years back.

 Hordini wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Bottom line is that our system is not perfect enough to have non-reversible punishments.

Prison time is irreversible. You can't give those years back.

This is some extreme nitpicking.

Not really.

You can't give those years back. And whats more the person is still around to suffer for it.

In many ways, keeping someone locked up is a worse punishment than death.

 Grey Templar wrote:

In many ways, keeping someone locked up is a worse punishment than death.

Wow.

Death Penalty threads are always sure to amaze with grand amounts of pure stupid.

Yes, and anyone who can't see how being confined can and is worse in some ways than death is stupid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and anyone who can't see how being confined can and is worse in some ways than death is stupid.

I guess I'm stupid then.

There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.

For arguments's sake:
1. To you maybe. Others disagree.

Whenever possible we should avoid killing people or making them suffer. That perhaps some believe that the death or suffering of another may do something to ease the pain they feel does nothing to change that. Killing and misery are awful things, if there is any alternative whatsoever we should avoid actively creating either.

2. Why?

 Frazzled wrote:

There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.

For arguments's sake:
1. To you maybe. Others disagree.

"rights" are an actual thing that you can point to. They can be subjective often, but they are still something tangible with a basis. If there's a "right to get revenge" floating around in the constitution, I'd like to see it.

If you are alive, even if you are imprisoned, you can still enjoy something occasionally. Music, a favorite food, etc.

Being dead, well, you can't.

I would say being alive under most circumstances is better than being dead. Which is a major reason I feel that murderers should be deprived of the same thing they deprived their victims of.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and anyone who can't see how being confined can and is worse in some ways than death is stupid.

What, if any validity this statement could have is largely dependent on the circumstances under which a person is confined.

Given the state of the American Prison system at least, it might be fair to say that both the death penalty and a prison sentence of any length are both grossly inhumane. However I think that speaks more as a condemnation of a prison system than it does a justification for the death penalty.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and anyone who can't see how being confined can and is worse in some ways than death is stupid.

I guess I'm stupid then.

Beware weasel words!

In some ways, owning a home is worse than a stale egg McMuffin!

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

There is no right to vengeance. Nobody has the right to have another person be dead or miserable.

For arguments's sake:
1. To you maybe. Others disagree.

"rights" are an actual thing that you can point to. They can be subjective often, but they are still something tangible with a basis. If there's a "right to get revenge" floating around in the constitution, I'd like to see it.

In contrast, another view proffers that the only rights you have are the ones you can take and defend.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Which is a major reason I feel that murderers should be deprived of the same thing they deprived their victims of.

There are two questions here and you are focusing on only one.

1. What is the appropriate punishment for someone who did X
2. Did this person do X?

The fact that we're only 98% good at number two is justification to back down to live without parole for number one. It still accomplishes what the state has an interest in (stop murder) and minimizes the impact of mistakes to a level we can live with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And remember, punishment for crimes is based on what the state has an interest in doing, not what makes the victim's families feel warm and fuzzy. Making people whole again is what civil court is for.

Not to mention, what is the point we intend for prisons? Do we want to use them just as a pen to make criminals rot, or should the goal be something greater than that?

Personally, I believe the role of prison should be centered around that of isolating criminals from the public at large while attempting to rehabilitate them to be useful members of society (if possible).

Of course, more vindictive people will disagree with that.

 Fafnir wrote:
Not to mention, what is the point we intend for prisons? Do we want to use them just as a pen to make criminals rot, or should the goal be something greater than that?

Personally, I believe the role of prison should be centered around that of isolating criminals from the public at large while attempting to rehabilitate them to be useful members of society (if possible).

Of course, more vindictive people will disagree with that.

There's a great comic about criminal law (anybody interested in the topic would enjoy the whole thing) that touches on this subject: (Not completely profanity free)

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=133

In short: we all talk about rehabilitation and deterrence, but realistically we just focus on keeping criminals off the street and punishing them to feel better.

Works for me.

 Polonius wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Not to mention, what is the point we intend for prisons? Do we want to use them just as a pen to make criminals rot, or should the goal be something greater than that?

Personally, I believe the role of prison should be centered around that of isolating criminals from the public at large while attempting to rehabilitate them to be useful members of society (if possible).

Of course, more vindictive people will disagree with that.

There's a great comic about criminal law (anybody interested in the topic would enjoy the whole thing) that touches on this subject: (Not completely profanity free)

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=133

In short: we all talk about rehabilitation and deterrence, but realistically we just focus on keeping criminals off the street and punishing them to feel better.

And with prisons operating for profit, it will continue to be that way (why rehabilitate prisoners so they won't reoffend when it removes your source of profit?).

 Frazzled wrote:
Works for me.

Until you realize that in most cases, the person imprisoned will be let out within a few years, no better than they were going in, and just as likely to cause more problems. If you figure out where they went wrong in life, give them the skills they need to succeed in society, and then let them out, everyone benefits, as opposed to one person just suffering.

 Fafnir wrote:

Until you realize that in most cases, the person imprisoned will be let out within a few years, no better than they were going in, and just as likely to cause more problems. If you figure out where they went wrong in life, give them the skills they need to succeed in society, and then let them out, everyone benefits, as opposed to one person just suffering.

I would agree with you, but rehabilitation has consistently failed on any long term scheme, especially in a modern economy where a person with a felony conviction is all but unemployable.

There are 2.2 million people incarcerated in this country, nearly all of prime working age. Our economy can't handle the number of low skilled workers we have now, let alone two million more.

 Polonius wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Until you realize that in most cases, the person imprisoned will be let out within a few years, no better than they were going in, and just as likely to cause more problems. If you figure out where they went wrong in life, give them the skills they need to succeed in society, and then let them out, everyone benefits, as opposed to one person just suffering.

I would agree with you, but rehabilitation has consistently failed on any long term scheme, especially in a modern economy where a person with a felony conviction is all but unemployable.

If a felony conviction precludes employment and employment is key to integration in society, then no honest attempt at rehabilitation has been made by society.

Yeah, even if you rehabilitate successfully, they get back out and the whole world gakks on them for the rest of their lives.

Which is why I would say the method itself is flawed, rather than the idea.

In an enlightened Frazzled administration, they will be too old when they leave to hurt anyone.

Chongara wrote:
If a felony conviction precludes employment and employment is key to integration in society, then no honest attempt at rehabilitation has been made by society.

The question isn't just eliminating stigma. The reason employers don't hire felons is because there is a surplus of unskilled labor. You don't need to hire felons to fill a job in this country, so why even bother?

Some would point out that the ludicrously dismal economic prospects of the poor might be a factor in crime, but I'm pretty sure they're all Bolsheviks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
Which is why I would say the method itself is flawed, rather than the idea.

But honestly rehabilitation is a case by case basis. Some people can be trained up, and given a new lease.

Scum are scum.

Which is why I noted that it would be optimal where possible. That said, I'd imagine that there are more cases where rehabilitation is possible than current society, especially with the systems in place, deem there to be.

Should have paid attention from the get go in school...

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Yeah, even if you rehabilitate successfully, they get back out and the whole world gakks on them for the rest of their lives.

You're not mad at society for being mean to felons are you?