Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 11:56:13 GMT -5
What are your views on how criminals should be punished? Are you pro-prisons? Are you pro or against capital punishment? Who should go to prison and what should prisons be like?
Try to discuss this globally, not just for your country or state or w/e.
Tell me nao!
My views: First of all, when judging a criminal, you have to see if that person is a danger to society. I know that in most countries, people who commit fraud are often sentenced to several years of prison. I think that's ridiculous. someone who commits fraud isn't a danger to society.
Punishment for someone like that should be a huge fine, appearance on a sort of "Black List" and a ban from the profession they committed fraud in. Prison sentence for people like that is just ridiculous, they will only cost money to society and probably come out worse.
Then you have people who are a danger to society, say thieves, muderers, pyromaniacs,.. Here you need to define two things: why do they do this and how severe are their actions? Based on that, I think you need 3 types of prisons and a psychological treatment system. The psychological treatment is obvious. For example, pyromaniacs (again) have mental problems and often these can be cured by therapy. These people should be treated by professional personnel, not locked in a prison. If that person appears to be incurable, they should be transferred to a TYPE 2 prison, which I will explain now:
Now for those who have no mental problems, there should be three types of prisons, lets call them TYPE 1, TYPE 2 and TYPE 3
TYPE 1: These prisons should be for people who commit a crime for the first time. I'm talking people who rob a store out of pure despair because job issues etc. Also minor crimes, not involved with the "criminal world" should lead to a prison sentence in a TYPE 1 prison. These prison should revolve around -Finding out why the inmates turned to crime -Trying to find non-criminal solutions together with them -If the problem is for example not finding a job because of lack of eduction: (re-)educating the inmates -adapting to society, learning to live in a normal community,... -...
These sentences should not be longer than one year and preferably not more than 6 months. Education should be continued outside of the prison community
TYPE 2: These prisons should be for people who are already stuck in the vicious circle that is the criminal world. Also people who commit more severe crimes, like murder. These should revolve around: -Separating criminals from "bad" influences. This means isolation from the outside. -Teaching the inmates basic society values -Searching for different non-criminal directions the inmates could go in -Determining if the inmate will ever be able to function normally in society or not. If not: transfer to TYPE 3 prison.
TYPE 3: Serial killers, serial rapist, the whole "incurable bunch" (that's what I call them). These people won't ever be able to function in society and therefore shouldn't be allowed to ever live in it. Unless proven innocent, every person to enter a TYPE 3 prison will stay there for the rest of his life.
All three of these types should have one basic fact though: LIFE IN PRISON SHOULD BE WORSE THAN LIFE OUTSIDE OF PRISON. Prison should only provide the basic human needs. This is especially for the TYPE 1 prison. If you show them it's worse on the inside, they won't be as quick to commit crimes again. But, you have to balance the suck of prison with the amount of luxury needed to re-educate and re-direct the inmates. That's kind of tricky, and should be studied extensively.
phew, those are my thoughts. What about the rest of the PogoTribe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 16:45:27 GMT -5
seriously? nobody has an opinion on this? weird :s
|
|
|
Post by Ferrrrrre on Apr 18, 2010 16:52:01 GMT -5
seriously? nobody has an opinion on this? weird :s ill update this post tmorrow with my opinion on the punishments and death penalty.. ps; quite handy you posted this now since this was the subject of our latest 'ncz' (moraal) class
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2010 17:33:36 GMT -5
lol
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 20, 2010 19:24:57 GMT -5
Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life. It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights. The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system. We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance. It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong. Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent. Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America. Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death. The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process. The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death. Mentally ill patients may be put to death. It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes. It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2010 2:12:52 GMT -5
ok, I agree with most of that, except the cost. Can you prove that it costs less to imprison someone for lifetime than kill them?
And what do you think would be a good system for punishing crime then?
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 22, 2010 22:08:08 GMT -5
ok, I agree with most of that, except the cost. Can you prove that it costs less to imprison someone for lifetime than kill them? And what do you think would be a good system for punishing crime then? The average cost in any state for capital punishment is 3 million dollars, 1.9 Million dollars more than to keep somebody in life for prison. Alone the average cost to the federal government is approx. $680,000 to defend the government in a capital punishment trial. Abolishing the death penalty should be common sense without even raising any form of moral questioning.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 23, 2010 6:22:11 GMT -5
If an adult kills a child, do you think they have the right to live? Even if an adult kills another adult, if it is not in self-defense, they taken away someone's right to live. So yes, they deserve to die.
|
|
|
Post by hey light on Apr 23, 2010 6:30:41 GMT -5
Capital punishment is wrong. If someone receives capital punishment for murder, then how is execution different from that murder? Also, there is always a chance that they may have gotten it wrong and killed a completely innocent person.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 23, 2010 6:32:17 GMT -5
If someone commits a murder that is not self defense, they took away another person's right to live. Therefore, in my eyes, they have lost THEIR right to live, so the execution isn't really taking away anything.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on Apr 23, 2010 9:16:30 GMT -5
If an adult kills a child, do you think they have the right to live? Even if an adult kills another adult, if it is not in self-defense, they taken away someone's right to live. So yes, they deserve to die. Its more of a punishment to leave them in prison. Your giving them a serene nirvana when they die. You act like its incredibly painful, but almost 95% of capital punishment is done through lethal injection which is 100% humane.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 23, 2010 17:00:57 GMT -5
If someone commits a murder that is not self defense, they took away another person's right to live. Therefore, in my eyes, they have lost THEIR right to live, so the execution isn't really taking away anything. I might agree with you on that, I'm not sure. But what I know is that the state has absolutely no right to kill a person no matter what that person has done. It is not my job to decide whether he has forfeited his right to life because I am only human. I think that that right cannot be given away, cannot be lost, cannot be taken away. It's inalienable. How can we do that? Who are we? We are just people, we know we are not perfect, we know we make mistakes. How can we possibly say "Because of what this person has done I own their life and it is mine to take from them on behalf of their victim." If we are willing to do this as a society it says something about us and how much respect we have for the individual. The person that died did not belong to us, it is not our place to coldly and unemotionally avenge them. As if sterile vengeance is some how okay but a murder outside of that lethal injection room is magically wrong again. The person that killed absolutely does not belong to us. They chose to live in society and so they had to follow its rules or face the consequences, but we do not have the right to take their life from them. We only have an obligation to protect each other from harm in the future, which means locking this person away. We do not have the moral authority to kill them.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 23, 2010 17:47:14 GMT -5
Its more of a punishment to leave them in prison. Your giving them a serene nirvana when they die. You act like its incredibly painful, but almost 95% of capital punishment is done through lethal injection which is 100% humane. I know lethal injection is painless. I know prison is punishment. I still stand by what I believe: capital punishment is justified for cases of murder (outside of self defense). It is not my job to decide whether he has forfeited his right to life because I am only human. I think that that right cannot be given away, cannot be lost, cannot be taken away. It's inalienable. When someone is murdered, another person took away their right to live, something you just said cannot be done. I firmly believe that someone who murders another human being has as many rights as some poo on the sidewalk, and I'm sure whoever they killed would agree with me. I know if I was murdered, I'd want my murderer to die too. The whole "we don't have the right to decide" argument holds no validity in my eyes, since the murderer had no right to decide, either, but they killed someone anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 23, 2010 17:54:07 GMT -5
It's time for the World According to Metallica: "Guilty as charged but damn it, it ain't right; there's someone else controlling me. Death in the air, strapped in the electric chair, this can't be happening to me. Who made you God to say 'I'll take your life from you'? Flash before my eyes, now it's time to die. Burning in my brain, I can feel the flame."
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 23, 2010 18:02:29 GMT -5
No they took away their life, they did not take away their right to live, they violated it. You can never loose your rights no matter what you or anyone else does.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 23, 2010 18:11:40 GMT -5
The only part of your response I have a problem with is where you address that I claim your argument doesn't hold validity. The idea of humans having rights and killing them as violating those rights is a concept I fully agree with. What I'm saying doesn't hold validity (again, this is in MY eyes. Me. Personally. In my opinion.) is where you claim we have no right to decide whether the murderer should live or die. As you said in your quaint proof, the murderer violated the victims right. In my opinion, that gives us the right to violate THEIR right to live. I suppose it's somewhat valid, I just don't agree with the logic behind it...so that makes me question its validity. Ya. xD
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 23, 2010 18:21:56 GMT -5
The only part of your response I have a problem with is where you address that I claim your argument doesn't hold validity. Validity is not subjective, something cannot be valid in your eyes and not someone elses eyes validity is a whole structure and a set of rules en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValidityWhat I said is objectively valid. You cannot reasonably question its validity. You can only say my premise is wrong. And maybe it is. I'm afraid I just don't understand your post anymore at this point, could you clarify what you were saying for me?
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 23, 2010 18:30:00 GMT -5
I still say I can consider it invalid, because I do believe validity can be subjective. (i.e. arguments based on religion or opinions...like these.) However, I don't want to argue over validity and invalidity. I wasn't trying to insult you.
What I'm saying is this:
1) Murdering someone is taking away their right to live (I know you disagree with me here) 2) The act of murdering also takes away the murderers right to live 3) Since the murderer has lost their right to live, execution is justifiable.
I know you disagree. It's cool. I'm very adamant about this, to be honest. I'll probably just get annoyed if I keep debating with you (nothing to do with you personally). I tend to be an open minded person, but there are a few topics where I have solidified my views and will "stand by what I know to be true."
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 23, 2010 18:40:07 GMT -5
I still say I can consider it invalid, because I do believe validity can be subjective. (i.e. arguments based on religion or opinions...like these.) However, I don't want to argue over validity and invalidity. I think you mean something completely different by invalid to what I do. It makes this entire conversation impossible. Next time just say "I i think that's wrong" if you don't want to argue over validity and invalidity! What gave you the impression I thought you were trying to insult me? If i could take away someones right to live then killing them wouldn't be wrong. So say i see a fat child, and i say, hey, i'd like to kill him, hey kid come over here and give me your right to live! Cheers. *punch* Then I could take his life, which he had no right to, bobs your uncle, no problem. This is the only thing we disagree on as I said earlier, other than that we're just having lexical difficulties. This your main premise. Aye, that's a valid conclusion to a premise which I feel differently about. Therefore I disagree with your valid argument and you disagree with my valid argument. Do you see? Lol we haven't been debating. All i did was state my argument and since then i've been trying to clarify what the difference is between our two opinions. That's cool I really think you should read up on validity, it's not related to this, you don't need to get angry. But it will enrich your life if you know about it
|
|
|
Post by Trinton on Apr 23, 2010 19:51:20 GMT -5
Wow, everything posted so far seems be about weather or not murders should be killed, basically. I'd just like to say that the system you suggested is really awesome, and I definitely agree with it. I think it's ridiculous how people end up spending so much time in jail for things like fraud. I don't have anything to add, really, just thought I'd say how awesome you are.
|
|