Crime, Punishment, and Death Penalties.

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

There's our topic, a threefold issue:

1. How to deter and prevent crimes

That's the toughest part. Money-related crimes, I'd say instill a strong work ethic in the children, that they don't think crime pays. Give prisoners less luxuries, so that poorer convicts want to stay out of jail if they luck out and gain parole. Also--and again, PAROLEES meant here--assist ex-cons in finding jobs. People with criminal records have a hard time finding a job, and even Alcatraz seems comfy compared to not having a roof over their heads.

2. How to properly punish the guilty

Prisons cannot be comfy. I'm not saying remove TV--although restricting them to one channel would be a good start. But they can't have a rock band featured on VH1. [agreeing with Bill O'Reilly here]

However, if the prisoners want extras, they should pay for it out of pocket. Whatever pittance they receive as a salary in prison, should pay for extra comforts--not the bulk of taxpayer dollars. Mom can send cookies, but no money.

The above was thieves, low-level drug dealers, drug users, prostitutes; IOW, people who serve at least 65% of their sentence before parole comes up. They can be rehabilitated, made into productive members of society. [of course, if two of these offenses becomes legal, there's more room for the criminals below; but I don't buy into one of them.]

Murderers stay in maximum security. Rapists after being surgically castrated--and given a vasectomy(or in the case of a female...we have to castrate them, too, somehow....), also remain in maximum, preferably in solitary confinement.

The murderers must serve at least 85% of their sentence before parole becomes an issue[unless we have a serial killer/terrorist/psychopath; in which case we simply excise them from the population. IOW, either execute them or give them life in solitary--mandatory.]

The sex offenders? They serve their sentence. No parole for them. If they killed their victims: life in solitary, no parole. Death is too lenient.

3. [I]Arguments on the death penalty

As aforementioned, nasty people who have no regard for human life should be removed from society as soon as the appeals process has been exhausted. The question for myself becomes whether it's cheaper for taxpayers to pay for a lifer's maintenance or for weekly firing squads blasting away at death row inmates.

Another issue: socioeconomic disparities in punishment of crimes.

These are the factors that muck up the works:

Gender
Race
Income
Number of offenses

[note: probably more, and not in any particular order.]

Winona Ryder can be used as an example.

Enjoy.

[Ben]

First off, surgical castration smacks of the cruel and unusual to me.

Originally posted by Anubis C. Soundwave
As aforementioned, nasty people who have no regard for human life should be removed from society as soon as the appeals process has been exhausted. The question for myself becomes whether it's cheaper for taxpayers to pay for a lifer's maintenance or for weekly firing squads blasting away at death row inmates.

Which "nasty people who have no regard for human life" are you referring to? The prisoners or the executioners?

But beyond concerns about killing people in order to teach the populace not to kill people, we can never be absolutely sure we are correct that someone deserves to die. Among such concerns are the sociopolitical reasons you mentioned. And it is just such absolute closure that comes with the death penalty. People on death row have been exonerated recently and frequently. In Illinois the brutal police torture to obtain confessions from suspects now on death row who were later proved innocent was so rampant that there is now a moratorium on executions -- one likely to continue into the next governor's term. An independent commission asked by the governor to review reforming the death penalty in Illionois ultimately reached the conclusion that the death penalty system is too corrupt to be saved and should be abolished.

You also mentioned the concept of deterring crime. The death penalty is no deterrent. Its reinstitution has no positive effect on murder rates in most cases. If someone is desperate enough to kill someone, they don't bet on getting away with nothing but life in prison, they're betting they won't get caught -- that they'll get away unpunished.

The death penalty is hypocritical, immoral, hopelessly corruptible and ineffective as a criminal deterrent.

[Outlander00]

Deterents and preventions:
You can never prevent crimes, plain and simple. Deterents, though, can work as long as they are positive and help progress society. These types of deterents include:

- community outreach
- improvements of public facilities and properties
- releasing a certain amount of burden on those less fortunate
* such as a type of progressive public asisstance
- proper supervison and policing
- proper education
- investment into the communities that are less fortunate

These examples have been proven to work in areas that have been riddled with massive amount of crime, such as LA and certain parts of NYC (which I have seen the befores and afters first hand).

I feel certain deterents, like the death penalty, are uneeded in our society and only show how barbaric we can be, not to mention my personal views on the topic.

As far as corporate crimes, well all you can do is toughen penalties and put into place certain regulations.


Proper Punishment

I agree with most of your thoughts, except for the surgical castration of rapists, and any use of the death penalty.

With the rapists, they are in need of psychiatric help, since the are, in fact, sociopaths. They are in need of constant help and observation.

I will explain the death penalty view next...

Death Penalty

I feel that the death penalty is unecessary, barbaric, and unfit for criminal or are deemed "worthy" of it.

It has been well documented that the death penalty is more costly, per inamte on death row, than if he was locked up in gen. population or solitary confinement. Inmates have anywhere from 25 to 50 appeals to go through before they are finally put to death, which could take years. Plus, these inamtes (not all mind you) get inmenities such as TV and other comforts. Couple with the fact that we are in a society that eye for an eye is old and archaic.

And, perosnally, I feel that death is too good for these individuals. They should serve their sentences fully in solitary... away from society, so that they can think about what they have done.

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

Originally posted by Twage
First off, surgical castration smacks of the cruel and unusual to me.



Which "nasty people who have no regard for human life" are you referring to? The prisoners or the executioners?

But beyond concerns about killing people in order to teach the populace not to kill people, we can never be absolutely sure we are correct that someone deserves to die. Among such concerns are the sociopolitical reasons you mentioned. And it is just such absolute closure that comes with the death penalty. People on death row have been exonerated recently and frequently. In Illinois the brutal police torture to obtain confessions from suspects now on death row who were later proved innocent was so rampant that there is now a moratorium on executions -- one likely to continue into the next governor's term. An independent commission asked by the governor to review reforming the death penalty in Illionois ultimately reached the conclusion that the death penalty system is too corrupt to be saved and should be abolished.

You also mentioned the concept of deterring crime. The death penalty is no deterrent. Its reinstitution has no positive effect on murder rates in most cases. If someone is desperate enough to kill someone, they don't bet on getting away with nothing but life in prison, they're betting they won't get caught -- that they'll get away unpunished.

The death penalty is hypocritical, immoral, hopelessly corruptible and ineffective as a criminal deterrent.

To address the first point: The sex offenders have marred the victims for life. Also, I'm not proposing having someone hack off the rapist's organ with a meat cleaver; I'm merely suggesting a painless surgical procedure that neuters the offender, rendering him/her uninterested in sex. In no way do I suggest that torturing rapists is a deterrent of future behaviors.

The second point: I mean the serial killers/terrorists/repeat murderers who will never leave prison anyway. From a taxpayer standpoint, I don't want to pay for this person to live in a prison on my money, though I do understand that killing the prisoner may not solve the matter either.

But what would you suggest as an alternative, one that would preserve the rights of the victim? Because the victim of the crime is who concerns me. Too much emphasis is placed on the rights of the criminals as is. What about the rights of the innocent who suffered at their hands? I'm sure they want to know that the perpetrators are being punished.

At the same time, the death penalty is so serious that the moratoriums are understandable. The system has to be perfected, or--again--an alternative has to be found that will save taxpayers money and preserve the rights of the victim while being humane to the criminal. I think it'd be easier to find a way to perfect the current system so that it's fairer to all accused of crimes meriting the death penalty.

It's not fair to the victims, their families, or other law-abiding taxpayers to have to foot the bill for the life imprisonment of Freddy Krueger, noted child molestor/killer. [and yes, I know the parents preempted the judicial system in his case.]

What do you propose is the alternative? Think about the victims, not the criminals. [This is not including the ones that turn out innocent, as you said.] The ones that are guilty, and have been proven guilty further with the added DNA evidence: I'm not concerned about their rights, as they weren't concerned about the rights of the people they hurt. Criminals like them should be removed from society with as little expense on them as possible.

And I'm not talking about the angry husband who sees his wife in bed with another man and kills them both in a blind rage. He can be rehabilitated. [though this one should serve 90% of his sentence.] I'm talking about people like Tim McVeigh, the "snipers", lingering Al-Qaida agents.... [and yes, I'm aware that the AQs most likely plan to die anyway....]

==

Truthfully, I believe in punishing crime to the fullest extent that our laws allow, depending on:

* the severity of the crime
* the frequency of the offense
* the motive
* the damages
* the potential threat to society posed

For an example, the Joker would have been dead LONG before RotJ.

Now, why would I make a distinction between the angry husband and the serial killer? The former acted out of anger and betrayal, and under other circumstances may not even have the disposition to kill. The latter, OTOH, plots to kill people--mostly at random, with a purpose known only to the perp.

Both should be punished, but the most severe crimes receive the most severe punishment.

Either we need to make death a better deterrent, or we need a more effective deterrent. If there is a more effective deterrent, I have yet to discover it. [thinks of live, televised firing squad to scare thoughts of violent crime out of the minds of potential criminals...will public executions work? who can say?]

I'm making propositions. I still have questions. How can we keep the disparities down to a minimum so that justice is dispensed fairly, for example?

One way is to train the cops thoroughly. We can't have another Miranda or Rodney King situation. [both were criminals.]

==

To Outlander:

With the rapists, they are in need of psychiatric help, since the are, in fact, sociopaths. They are in need of constant help and observation.

Not a problem, but they can still be castrated. The victims have been marred; they should be marred in some way.

[Shnay]

Originally posted by Anubis C. Soundwave
It's not fair to the victims, their families, or other law-abiding taxpayers to have to foot the bill for the life imprisonment of Freddy Krueger, noted child molestor/killer. [and yes, I know the parents preempted the judicial system in his case.]

But what you have to realize is that prisons not only work to punish criminals...they also work to take these people out of society. In that sense, this is a government service that protects citizens from dangerous people, and that service needs to be paid for. I don't think the death penalty is a solution to the issue of cost, because, as Twage said, the death penalty is often much more expensive in the end.

Either we need to make death a better deterrent, or we need a more effective deterrent. If there is a more effective deterrent, I have yet to discover it. [thinks of live, televised firing squad to scare thoughts of violent crime out of the minds of potential criminals...will public executions work? who can say?]

Was the idea of public executions a serious proposal? I can't tell from the tone of the post. Anyway, if it is even somewhat serious, I have to disagree with it. Things like that are a needlessly barbaric way to show the "power" of the government, and, if carried out, could turn into a sick pleasure of the public, as executions were for much of Europe hundreds of years ago.

I think the main reasoning behind the death penalty isn't about deterants, or taxpayer dollars...it's what some people feel is the best way to carry out justice. I can understand why people would believe that, but I don't agree. For some people, there just is no justice. Let's say Hitler had been captured. What would have been done? Would torturing him make up for what he did? Would killing him bring about justice? With someone like that, there simply is no justice that can be brought about.

But even on a much less severe note, let's say a murderer is put to death. Does that really do the victim or the victim's family any good? Does it do society any good? Most would say it offers closure, and, while I'd agree that it does, I'd say that it's much too quick and simple of a way to bring that closure. And, in the end, it does not accomplish any of the things it intends to do.

[Outlander00]

Not a problem, but they can still be castrated. The victims have been marred; they should be marred in some way.

They have been more emotionally scarred than physically (unless they were physically assualted in another way like battered) and one wouldnt necessarily justify the other. Again, the logic of an eye for an eye has no place in our society anymore. Like I said, the people who do it are mentally ill. You would make their condition somewhat worse if you did that. Plus, who is to say after their release they would not try to do it again? No... psychological help and constant supervision is probably best for those individuals.

Now, if this individual was a repeat offender and is knowingly (proven by psychological profile that he is not mentally or emotionally deficient), then perhaps it would be the only alternative. but, it has been proven most individuals who do these sort of things are ill.

[zmanjz]

Ah yes, the battle between Utilitarian and Retributive criminal justice theories wages on.

Personally, I see my self as mostly a retributivist. I believe that a person should recieve their due for what they've done.

However I do believe in utilitarian theory for permenantly removing imminent dangers to society to a nice secure environment where they can be watched.


>Shameless Plug<

I recomend any book on the topic written by Dr. Kenneth Haas.
(and No, I don't get a cut of the royalties)

>Shameless plug<



But here's a fun one. If a man is about to burn down your house (and no one will be physically harmed by the fire)

And you just happen to have a gun on you, should you be able to kill the man to stop him from burning down your house?

[Shnay]

Originally posted by zmanjz
But here's a fun one. If a man is about to burn down your house (and no one will be physically harmed by the fire)

And you just happen to have a gun on you, should you be able to kill the man to stop him from burning down your house?

Huh, that is a good one. I say no. But if there was absolutely no other way to stop the guy, and you had warned him...no. Still no. I dunno, I guess this reflects more of my personal opinions about this type of thing than an actual ethical/legal arguement.

I suppose you have the "right" to. If one would want to protect their property at all costs, then I guess that's their belief. But, c'mon, it's just property, right? I know it sounds strange to say it's "just a house," and I'm not saying I wouldn't really hate to lose mine, but I just think that violence like that should be reserved for only the most dire of situations. And, if you ask me, losing your house doesn't fit into that category.

Also, would you have to "shoot to kill?" Wouldn't there be a way to stop him without killing him? But I guess that's not really the point of the quesiton.

[Tempus]

I totally agree with death penalties. If you take someones life, or you rape someone, you shouldn't deserve to live...

[Steve Jester]

Originally posted by Anubis C. Soundwave
To address the first point: The sex offenders have marred the victims for life. Also, I'm not proposing having someone hack off the rapist's organ with a meat cleaver; I'm merely suggesting a painless surgical procedure that neuters the offender, rendering him/her uninterested in sex. In no way do I suggest that torturing rapists is a deterrent of future behaviors.

But in any way shape or form the Nine Wise Souls in Washington would still find castration as cruel and unusual. They're the ones that interpret the "Holy Scripture" that is the Constitution.*


* The "Holy Scripture" comment was ment in sarcasm, I'm not here to start a religous flame war.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Anubis C. Soundwave
Not a problem, but they can still be castrated. The victims have been marred; they should be marred in some way.

Also, no one has brought up the fact that castration probably wouldn't even help prevent the crimes in question, as every psychologist knows, rape and sexual assault is an act of power, not a sexual act. So it may continue regardless of sterilization.

[ZorBrak]

There are some really horrible people in this world and I should not have to pay to feed anyone that is evil enough to kill another human being. "People" like terrorists or like cop killers deserve the death penalty. It disgusts me when these "people" get off the hook because of sympathizers in our society. If someone were to kill a cop just because they were a cop for example I would have no problem having the killer executed. It's one less scum mouth for our taxes to feed, and the killer is getting what he deserves for taking the life of an innocent. Unfortunately, with all the sympathizers out there I'm sure people would rally around such a murderer and claim that he was a victim of society or something stupid like that. The people being forced to pay for murderer's food and bed are the victims of society not the murderers. The family of murdered police are the victims (and then THEIR taxes pay for food of the person who murdered their brother/father/son). A killer is no freaking victim... he's a killer. There was a cop killed recently on a routine pullover, he did nothing but his job and he was killed for it. Half of the people in this society will now go and look at the killer and say "awww the poor guy". Will they ever think of the cop? What about his family? The death penalty is necessary and the thought of abolishing it is ludicrous. Some people lose their right to live the moment they kill another. This is especially true when the killing is over something stupid and killing a man because he is a cop is extremely stupid.