kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on Apr 25, 2010 8:59:23 GMT -5
The thing about prisons is they don't work. They're over crowded and quite frankly a mess!!! they fail to rehabilitate, they do not act as a deterrent. I understand the need for those criminals who are a danger to the public to be kept away from the rest of society however those who commit crimes such as fraud need to be punished some other way. Curfews, house arrest, tagged. I don't know, all I know is there needs to be a serious overhaul in the way prisons are run. I would also like to point out this is with particular reference to the UK as I don't know much about prison systems elsewhere. Kadie  x |
|
|
|
Post by GojuRyuKarateWolf on Apr 26, 2010 14:53:03 GMT -5
Obviously, evidence is needed. Death Penalty for example CAN be used, but only if the criminal did something extreme. I support the idea of 'no life should be taken away', but in some cases that's just the 'right punishment'. Some court rooms are racist. Once (can't remember the country) had a culprit of their nationality and a culprit of a different nationality. The culprit that was from another country was arrested (and he was completely innocent). Worst is the fact that they arrested him without any evidence at all. So that's the starting point: Justice in court rooms. As for prisons, they should only take in real criminals. Many innocent people are in prison right now for no apparent reason.
|
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on Apr 26, 2010 15:20:43 GMT -5
@gojuryukaratewolf But how can you ever no 100% certainly that someone is guilty?
|
|
|
|
Post by GojuRyuKarateWolf on Apr 29, 2010 6:27:58 GMT -5
kadie Everything takes time, every evidence is important. Of course you rarely are 100% sure, but you need to see the cases like 5 times at least...ok maybe not much..3?
|
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 2, 2010 3:48:48 GMT -5
1.) Prison unless max security is an adult daycare
2.) Fallacy: No one has the "right" to live. Some document may claim it to be true, but I could write one claiming a cat is a cow, it does not make it so.
3.) Capital Punishment DOES cost more than life in prison, however this is only due to calculated costs of appeals, not the original trial, imprisonment, and carrying out of sentence.
Fraud is theft in a funny hat
So person A commits a crime with his mental illness such as burning down a building, however person B suffers from depression, however the state or federal government or whatever gives treatment on the taxpayers dime to the person who commited a crime, yet person B is left to fend alone or on his own dime. Instead why not universal psychological reform.
quicker solution public flogging
Depending on offense. More lashes at a public flogging or death.
by doing so, you also remove them from "good" influences
Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten. Hand them a refresher pamphlet and send them on their way
Should be like a career option thing possibly.
.... I find this either really funny or really sad
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Do swing by the neck until dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 2, 2010 3:55:43 GMT -5
wwhy dont we just allow crime to go unpunished? i want you as president
|
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 2, 2010 5:52:09 GMT -5
wait.... don't we do that already?
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 2, 2010 10:49:35 GMT -5
cortney...will you marry me? well...that was a bit extreme lol...but yeah when a person kills another person, he forfeits his right to live. he has taken that right from someone else, and has therefore given up his own right to live. all the executioner is doing is facilitating that, the judge, jury and executioner arent deciding whether he has the right to live, they are just giving him the sentence he brought on himself. as for saying that the death penalty is painless...this argument comes usually from anti death penalty people who use this ridiculous form of devils advocate to try and win the debate...its stupid, because if you really believed that the death penalty shouldnt be done because its too easy, then why not o away with the anesthetics? let them writhe in pain as the poison flows through their veins. let them scream as the agony engulfs them. the death penalty is about justice. plain and simple. is it just for the murderer to walk on this earth while his victim does not? personally, i agree with the statement that the death penalty is too easy. in my view it should be as slow and painful as possible. for example set them up with an IV drip of chlorine...that'll do it. slow and extremely EXTREMELY painful. or for those of you that want a quick death...an injection of compressed air straight into the heart. one massive excruciatingly painful burst of pain, and its all over. best part...its cheap  as for your wonderful treatise on how the prison system should run...its kinda already like that. type 1 = minimum security type 2 = medium security type 3 = maximum security |
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on May 2, 2010 11:06:01 GMT -5
in my view it should be as slow and painful as possible. for example set them up with an IV drip of chlorine...that'll do it. slow and extremely EXTREMELY painful. or for those of you that want a quick death...an injection of compressed air straight into the heart. one massive excruciatingly painful burst of pain, and its all over. best part...its cheap I actually feel like I'm gonna throw up  |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on May 2, 2010 11:26:53 GMT -5
heres a barf bag...but you get the point. th eargument that the death penalty is way too easy so life in prison should be the alternative, is ridiculous because it leads to conclusions like that |
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on May 2, 2010 12:06:06 GMT -5
heres a barf bag...but you get the point. th eargument that the death penalty is way too easy so life in prison should be the alternative, is ridiculous because it leads to conclusions like that I think that argument is stupid as well. However the fact is that we don't have the right to choose whether someone ought to live or die and by sentencing someone to death that is fundamentally what you're doing. The death penalty is something I am very strongly opposed to, and I firmly believe it has no place in a civilised society. |
|
|
|
Post by thejourney on May 2, 2010 12:39:09 GMT -5
in america you get a certain amount of apeals in court that cost money to pay for a lawyer paid by the state if you are on death row you are going to use all youre apeals which will actualy cost more to do than to keep them in for life
|
|
The Doctor
Moon
I wear my sunglasses at night
Posts: 147
|
Post by The Doctor on May 2, 2010 12:50:06 GMT -5
I think Ive debated this here before, maybe it was on the old moon, anyhow!
I dont believe in punishment, because punishment is revenge, and revenge leads to nothing. Weeell, it leads to more revenge, which in itself counteracts the reason for punishment...
There are roughly four kinds of criminals, there are the ones who do it for gain (Hitmen, robbers, fraud) there are the ones who do it because of mental instability (bad breakups, psychosis, serial-killers) and there are the ones who disregard the laws because they see themselfs as above them (CEOs, DUI, taxfraud) and lastly there are the ones who are forced by circumstance to commit crimes (drugs, friends, poverty)
All these can be fixed. Worst comes to worst they get locked in a mental institution for the rest of their life because we are not cunning enough in this subject, mostly because we dont care about why, we just care about how.
Re: death penalty
Give me ONE good reason for having it! One solid sound reason why some people should be killed. I could literary write 1000 of pages about why not to have it, but instead I will just ask, why should we have it? There is no logical or rational reason for it...
|
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on May 2, 2010 13:28:34 GMT -5
I think Ive debated this here before, maybe it was on the old moon, anyhow! I don't believe in punishment, because punishment is revenge, and revenge leads to nothing. Weeell, it leads to more revenge, which in itself counteracts the reason for punishment... There are roughly four kinds of criminals, there are the ones who do it for gain (Hitmen, robbers, fraud) there are the ones who do it because of mental instability (bad breakups, psychosis, serial-killers) and there are the ones who disregard the laws because they see themselfs as above them (CEOs, DUI, taxfraud) and lastly there are the ones who are forced by circumstance to commit crimes (drugs, friends, poverty) All these can be fixed. Worst comes to worst they get locked in a mental institution for the rest of their life because we are not cunning enough in this subject, mostly because we dont care about why, we just care about how. Re: death penalty Give me ONE good reason for having it! One solid sound reason why some people should be killed. I could literary write 1000 of pages about why not to have it, but instead I will just ask, why should we have it? There is no logical or rational reason for it... Yay - some sense, criminals need to be rehabilitated and reintroduced to society and a healthy way. Not just dismissed as an "evil" person and thrown in some jail to rot until they are let out into society and left to commit the same crimes and worse again and again. Admittedly there are some things that can't be rehabilitated such as pedophilia but even these people can be helped in some ways |
|
|
|
Post by fcktht on May 2, 2010 16:18:19 GMT -5
its not always a matter of rehabilitation, with some people kindness does work. with some people, if the root of their issue is being unloved or whatever, then yes, they can be rehabilitated, and may not even need jail time. other people use imprisonment as a form of rehabilitation. they realize how low they have sunk, they look around them and they see the very dregs of society and the realization hits them that they are now one of those dregs. that alone inspires them to change, inspires them to better themselves. for others, neither of the above would work. for some people, all they know are reward and punishment, the two most basic concepts. therefore, these people will commit crimes until they are imprisoned. then fear of prison keeps them from crime in the future. there are still other people, who are not phased at all. they do not respond to affection, they feel no inspiration to change, and they have no fear of incarceration or punishment at all. with such people, all you can do is lock them away. not so much for their sake, but for societies sake. such people must be locked away to protect good citizens.
as for death penalty, think about it, why should a person who took a life in cold blood, premeditated, and in malice, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty, be allowed to live?
is that justice? even in prison, their life is better than the person they killed (the person is dead after all...). what gives them the right to live while their victim rots, the family grieves? when one person kills another in such a fashion, they forfeit their humanity, and just like a dog would be euthanized for killing a human, so should this criminal. in fact, i would say a dog has more right to live, a dog cannot make decisions like a human can.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 2, 2010 16:56:58 GMT -5
People shouldn't go around killing others, but why is it fine when the state does it?
|
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on May 2, 2010 17:02:25 GMT -5
as for death penalty, think about it, why should a person who took a life in cold blood, premeditated, and in malice, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty, be allowed to live? is that justice? even in prison, their life is better than the person they killed (the person is dead after all...). what gives them the right to live while their victim rots, the family grieves? when one person kills another in such a fashion, they forfeit their humanity, and just like a dog would be euthanized for killing a human, so should this criminal. in fact, i would say a dog has more right to live, a dog cannot make decisions like a human can. Okay firstly hardly any murders are premeditated. The majority of murders are "crimes of passion" Secondly, I doubt you will ever be able to prove that someone is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Thirdly what gives you anymore right then that murderer to decide who gets to love and who gets to die. Lastly I would like to raise the point of who would carry out the execution, cause by your logic they would then need to be executed. Just Sayin' |
|
|
|
Post by fcktht on May 2, 2010 17:04:15 GMT -5
well, its very simple. there is a huge difference between when the state does it after a person has been convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, after having evidence presented for both sides, arguments, discussions, debates, deliberations, and finally a verdict handed down by the jury and the sentence by a qualified judge of the laws of our country, and when some lowlife good for nothing piece of SHIRT goes and kills a perfectly innocent person.
|
|
kadie
Moon
"You don't need a licence to drive a sandwhich!"
Posts: 240
|
Post by kadie on May 2, 2010 17:12:18 GMT -5
No, at the end of the day killing is killing. Whose to say that innocent person didn't do something ghastly which resulted in them being murdered.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 2, 2010 17:31:00 GMT -5
well, its very simple. there is a huge difference between when the state does it after a person has been convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, after having evidence presented for both sides, arguments, discussions, debates, deliberations, and finally a verdict handed down by the jury and the sentence by a qualified judge of the laws of our country, and when some lowlife good for nothing piece of SHIRT goes and kills a perfectly innocent person. What if the person debated it with HIS/HER peers and found it right to kill someone? Its not the first time people do not agree with a court ruling. The government is elected by the people, the jury isn't. What makes you so sure that everything the courts say is right? |
|
