It brings us down to their level, and its not even a punishment really, just an end.I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.
I think that if that's what prison sentences actually were like, you'd get a lot of agreement.Dilbert_X wrote:
It brings us down to their level, and its not even a punishment really, just an end.I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.
Its just gruesome really, and doesn't seem to affect the crime rate so apart from vengeance I don't see the point really.
I would rather someone did hard labour, or rotted in some shit-hole.
Sort of.... As I mentioned in that other thread, there are multiple forms of evolution. The one we normally think of is biological, but there is also something known as cultural evolution.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Nah. Just trying to prove a point that the deviants are not the fittest in a 'civilized' society.imortal wrote:
Same game, it is just the rules have changed as to what consitutes "the Fittest."KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
"Survival of the Fittest" was replaced by "whoever has the most money".
It depends on the prison. Some county prisons are pretty harsh.FEOS wrote:
I think that if that's what prison sentences actually were like, you'd get a lot of agreement.Dilbert_X wrote:
It brings us down to their level, and its not even a punishment really, just an end.I never really understood why executing a proven murderer would upset anybody.
Its just gruesome really, and doesn't seem to affect the crime rate so apart from vengeance I don't see the point really.
I would rather someone did hard labour, or rotted in some shit-hole.
The main problem I see is that, once someone goes to prison and is then released, there's not much opportunity for that person to usually have a normal life afterwards. Before anyone blasts me for this, it's not sympathy that motivates me -- it's the fact that if someone doesn't have many opportunities after prison, they will simply return to crime.Narupug wrote:
Good Riddance, Capitol Punishment was never the answer.
Here in Cali they have to release 40% of the prisoners to make a dent in the budget deficit. This is when California has the biggest prisoner to population ratio of any state in the Union. They don't focus on rehibilatating prisoners they just say we lock them up so we don't have to deal with them on the streets. Look what happened because of that.
I say more rehibilatation and no more capitol punishment.
That's the point of rehibilitation, to get these people jobs and such once they're out of prisonTurquoise wrote:
The main problem I see is that, once someone goes to prison and is then released, there's not much opportunity for that person to usually have a normal life afterwards. Before anyone blasts me for this, it's not sympathy that motivates me -- it's the fact that if someone doesn't have many opportunities after prison, they will simply return to crime.Narupug wrote:
Good Riddance, Capitol Punishment was never the answer.
Here in Cali they have to release 40% of the prisoners to make a dent in the budget deficit. This is when California has the biggest prisoner to population ratio of any state in the Union. They don't focus on rehibilatating prisoners they just say we lock them up so we don't have to deal with them on the streets. Look what happened because of that.
I say more rehibilatation and no more capitol punishment.
If the end goal of the justice system is to reduce crime, the current system isn't accomplishing this.
Uh why kill the person when we can just put him away for life, I mean he'll die anyway after suffering through years of rotting in a cell. Isn't that worse then just killing him outright and putting him out of his misery.Zefar wrote:
But it has been proven that prisoners STILL keep doing bad things when they get out. Some even do it on the very first day they get out. Like killing a person or something even worse like an entire family.
The "It brings us down to their level" kind of crap is just bullshit.
WE are the good guys because this fella would MOST LIKELY continue to kill people when he gets out. So we are saving the people that are about to become victims. But according to some of you people he should only be kept in and hope he fixes himself or learned a lesson. They don't most of the time.
So then we have another family/person death and once again he's throw in jail.
Let say he start at age 18, kill a person gets 10 years, comes out at 28 and kill an entire family, gets 15 years and becomes 43, now he rapes the daughters and women in another family and then kill them off. Gets shot by a police due to that he have a gun.
Do you SERIOUSLY think we are lowered down their levels when we finish off this scum?
Man I wouldn't want to trust you to guard someone, when you'll go "Oh it'll be fine, he's been in for like 20 years, he can't be mad anymore."
As for innocent victims, well shit happens. People die all the time no one seems to bother by that. Not to mention it's most likely due to that those assholes where released in the first place.
And you think the Death Penalty is cruel and unusual? If you kill them, you are putting them out of commision. Permenantly. He will never excape, never cause a riot, never sit in jail with nothing to lose if he shivs another prisoner or guard. It is cheaper, as housing a prisoner for life can reach into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. It would lower prison overcrowding. Oh, and forget my $0.17 bullet; a rope is recyclable.Narupug wrote:
Uh why kill the person when we can just put him away for life, I mean he'll die anyway after suffering through years of rotting in a cell. Isn't that worse then just killing him outright and putting him out of his misery.
Well, as the current system stands, the appeals process is very expensive. We could reform that to reduce costs.imortal wrote:
And you think the Death Penalty is cruel and unusual? If you kill them, you are putting them out of commision. Permenantly. He will never excape, never cause a riot, never sit in jail with nothing to lose if he shivs another prisoner or guard. It is cheaper, as housing a prisoner for life can reach into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. It would lower prison overcrowding. Oh, and forget my $0.17 bullet; a rope is recyclable.Narupug wrote:
Uh why kill the person when we can just put him away for life, I mean he'll die anyway after suffering through years of rotting in a cell. Isn't that worse then just killing him outright and putting him out of his misery.
Furthermore, I believe that executions should be public, and that every child be forced to attend at least one in person before high school, so they can see the end result of the justice system. I believe in scaring people straight (in a crime sense; not in sexuality).
But I do believe that executions should be reserved for those who we have absolute, conclusive proof of guilt. If there is a chance he may be innocent, he should be afforded a chance to clear himself. But if I have you on video killing someone, a say hanging by the neck within a week of sentencing is about right.
After all, it is more economical that way. And more humane, if you think about all the time having them think about it.
I have no problem with that. There is no such thing as 'victomless crime' when you are embezzling money. I see no problem killing coorperate financiers who cook the books. Murderers, (forcable) rapists, 3 time (violent) criminals, traitors, (real) child moleterers... why not add an element of danger to cooperate work? Oh, and the heads of companies that defraud the government, since that is reaching a hand into all of our pockets... and politicians convicted of certain unethical practices (selling votes).Turquoise wrote:
Still, while I understand your side of this argument, I don't think you can really argue that the death penalty is much of a deterrent to crime.
About the only way you could use it as a deterrent is to make certain corporate crimes punishable by death, because the people committing "Madoff" style crimes are more intelligent than your average murderer. Not a whole lot of thought goes into most murder, where most embezzling schemes take a lot of planning.
lol... If you shot some of the Detroit Lions's players, the owner might thank you.imortal wrote:
I have no problem with that. There is no such thing as 'victomless crime' when you are embezzling money. I see no problem killing coorperate financiers who cook the books. Murderers, (forcable) rapists, 3 time (violent) criminals, traitors, (real) child moleterers... why not add an element of danger to cooperate work? Oh, and the heads of companies that defraud the government, since that is reaching a hand into all of our pockets... and politicians convicted of certain unethical practices (selling votes).Turquoise wrote:
Still, while I understand your side of this argument, I don't think you can really argue that the death penalty is much of a deterrent to crime.
About the only way you could use it as a deterrent is to make certain corporate crimes punishable by death, because the people committing "Madoff" style crimes are more intelligent than your average murderer. Not a whole lot of thought goes into most murder, where most embezzling schemes take a lot of planning.
...of course, I have stated for the last few years that football really needs a team sniper, who gets 3 bullets to use during a game. Can only shoot players who are on the field, and only during a play, though.
I did mention in another thread that I am not one for polite company, yes?
And just think how it would lower player's saleries! And create job openings. (Look, I am creating jobs!)Turquoise wrote:
lol... If you shot some of the Detroit Lions's players, the owner might thank you.imortal wrote:
I have no problem with that. There is no such thing as 'victomless crime' when you are embezzling money. I see no problem killing coorperate financiers who cook the books. Murderers, (forcable) rapists, 3 time (violent) criminals, traitors, (real) child moleterers... why not add an element of danger to cooperate work? Oh, and the heads of companies that defraud the government, since that is reaching a hand into all of our pockets... and politicians convicted of certain unethical practices (selling votes).Turquoise wrote:
Still, while I understand your side of this argument, I don't think you can really argue that the death penalty is much of a deterrent to crime.
About the only way you could use it as a deterrent is to make certain corporate crimes punishable by death, because the people committing "Madoff" style crimes are more intelligent than your average murderer. Not a whole lot of thought goes into most murder, where most embezzling schemes take a lot of planning.
...of course, I have stated for the last few years that football really needs a team sniper, who gets 3 bullets to use during a game. Can only shoot players who are on the field, and only during a play, though.
I did mention in another thread that I am not one for polite company, yes?
Anyway, seriously, I can agree with you here. I think people like Madoff deserve the death penalty more than someone who kills one person. Madoff ruined thousands of lives, whereas murderers affect usually a lot fewer people.
Granted, I don't have a problem with executing both groups if we greatly improve our investigative methods and the integrity of our justice system.
Good points... I like that.imortal wrote:
And just think how it would lower player's saleries! And create job openings. (Look, I am creating jobs!)Turquoise wrote:
lol... If you shot some of the Detroit Lions's players, the owner might thank you.imortal wrote:
I have no problem with that. There is no such thing as 'victomless crime' when you are embezzling money. I see no problem killing coorperate financiers who cook the books. Murderers, (forcable) rapists, 3 time (violent) criminals, traitors, (real) child moleterers... why not add an element of danger to cooperate work? Oh, and the heads of companies that defraud the government, since that is reaching a hand into all of our pockets... and politicians convicted of certain unethical practices (selling votes).
...of course, I have stated for the last few years that football really needs a team sniper, who gets 3 bullets to use during a game. Can only shoot players who are on the field, and only during a play, though.
I did mention in another thread that I am not one for polite company, yes?
Anyway, seriously, I can agree with you here. I think people like Madoff deserve the death penalty more than someone who kills one person. Madoff ruined thousands of lives, whereas murderers affect usually a lot fewer people.
Granted, I don't have a problem with executing both groups if we greatly improve our investigative methods and the integrity of our justice system.
I agree that the judicial system needs to be overhauled. For one thing, I think we can finally step away from the 'confrontational' system we currently use, and go to more of a 'fact-finding' system. The defense council is still trying to get the inocent man go, but if defense council knows he is guilty (by his own admission, for example), then that infomation must be turned over to the prosecution, as well. If the defendant is guilty, the defense council needs to work more on extenuation and mitigation than on trying to lie his butt off to get his guilty client out the door. I do not think civilian defense council should be allowed in any criminal case. Prosecution and defense councils should be assigned the case at random, and they should come from a common pool of state attorneys, in order to prevent one side from getting stacked with the good ones and skew justice. I also think that the Jury needs to be overhauled, since the system we have in place now pretty much insures that only the uninformed, non-productive idiots of society will be sitting in a jury. My idea would be 3 judges (a senior pool of those state lawyers again) and 4 citizens sit on a 7 member panel to hear the evidence. The senior judge oversees the case and ensures that the proper form is followed. After the case is concluded, the 9 members of the court (1 prosecuting, 1 defense, 3 judges, 4 citizens) meet in chambers and decide (vote) on guilt or inocence.
Anyway, that is my idea.
