NationStates Jolt Archive

Should those that commit the crimes of Rape and Murder face the rest of the life behind bars?

yup.

dp.

Okay, I'm game. Why is this a question? How about more discussion on this. For starters, why does someone who commits rape or murder deserve life behind bars while someone who commits armed robbery or even other crimes doesn't? Or was that part of your question? Better yet, why do these people deserve life in prison instead of execution? That's a question I'd like to see answered by any and all who'd care for a stab at it. Also, how is life behind prison better for someone than execution? After all, the idea of prison is rehabilitation so someone can eventually re-enter the community, right? If they know they'll never re-enter, it doesn't seem like a very effective means of rehabilitation. Wouldn't the more humane thing to do be simply ending their lives quietly and painlessly instead of sticking them in a cold dark hole? Or is the need to put them in that hole some kind of vengeance-motivated desire? After all, the line between vengeance and justice is very very fine indeed. Personally, I don't believe there is a line in most modern societies.

Anyone who has any opinions on this subject, please feel free to comment, whether you agree or disagree with whatever is said. By the way, I haven't actually said what I think about it above, so don't bother flaming me. I'll respond to any thoughtful posts, emails, or telegrams.

-K
Representative of the Democratic Republic of Chimaeron
to the August Body of the United Nations

Slaughter them all! I say! If it were my wife I would certaintly want thier head. Yeah that's emotion but did not Mark Antony defeat Brutus with emotion instead of logic? not that I'm against logic or reason but if there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT THEN END THIER WORTHLESS LIFE!

Also, how is life behind prison better for someone than execution? After all, the idea of prison is rehabilitation so someone can eventually re-enter the community, right? If they know they'll never re-enter, it doesn't seem like a very effective means of rehabilitation.

I don't think the state should have the power to kill people in peace-time unless they have specifically requested it (i.e. euthanasia provided by state-provided healthcare systems), so if we aren't going to kill them then the worst punishment available is life in prison. And if a panel of experts deems them to be rehabilitated before they die but after a minimum sentence has run out, then I would say they should be let out - for instance, the Jamie Bulger killers were completely rehabilitated in the UK to the extent that they were all but different people when they were released, so it made sense to let them out.

Ben, they really werent different people. They got it all, PS2's football match tickets, the lot. And they never showed any remorse.
I hope to God that somebody uncovers thier disguise and a mob lynchs them.

Ben, they really werent different people. They got it all, PS2's football match tickets, the lot. And they never showed any remorse.
I hope to God that somebody uncovers thier disguise and a mob lynchs them.

:roll: And with that happy thought ...

Is this actually leading into an idea for a proposal, out of curiousity ?

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Should those that commit the crimes of Rape and Murder face the rest of the life behind bars?

Yes, on both counts.

* * *

Rape is an act often premediated and always harmful, violating a woman in the most severe way possible. It humiliates women deeply, and can psychologically and physically scar them for life. Thus I say that rapists should get life in prison -- although in some cases I would recommend that they be allowed parole in a couple dozen years.

However, on a side note, some people argue that when someone is raped emergency contraception should be applied, so that the women will not have to "bear the burden of an unwanted pregnancy." I cannot support this because of its moral implications; it is an act of murder if a child has by chance been conceived. And in this issue it must also be realized that because of psychological stresses, a female's body often may even skip a "period" because of the event. Finally, it has been proven that "rape kits" used on victims to prevent pregnancy are dangerous. From the book Grand Illusions by George Grant (Wolgemuth and Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.), chapter four, page 67:

Menstrual extraction. This method of abortion is generally performed immediately following a rape incident. Since a pregnancy cannot be confirmed at this early stage, menstrual extractions are not counted in abortion statistics, but it is estimated that as many as fifteen thousand a year are performed in the United States. The procedure involves the insetion of a vacuum aspirator into the uterus and the extraction of all uterine contents. As innocuous and simple as this may sound, it can result in serious complications: urinary tract infections, cervical trauma, sepsis, peritonitis, endometritis, and salpingitis.

Leslie Thompson was "date raped" in 1985. "When the police were finished taking my statement," she said, "they took me to a Planned Parentlyhood clinic. The counselor there told me that a doctor was going to treat me with a rape kit. I was so upset, I enver asked any questions. I didn't have any idea what a rape kit was. I just figured that the police and the nurses and the doctors were just following procesure."

The clinic personnel performed a menstrual extraction abortion on Leslie and released her an hour later. "For the next several days," she told me, "I had a persistent pain and a low grade fever that I just couldn't knock. I finally went in to see my own doctor." Upon examination he found that she was suffering from endometritis -- an inflammation of the uterine lining caused by an infection that had set in following the abortion. He was able to treat Leslie with antibiotics and she quickly recovered. "He told me that if I'd waited even a day or two longer, I'd have been in real trouble. I gues I was fortunate. But it kinda makes me wonder how many women don't have that kind of good fortune."

So abortions performed after rapes are dangerous and uncertain. I cannot condone this.

* * *

As for murder...

Murder is often either a premediated act, an accident, or commited on account of drunkenness. It does end a human life, and if it is actually unsuccessful it will undoubtedly still result in much human pain, suffering, and scarring, both in the physical and mental realms. This is the worst crime that one can commit, against both humankind and God. It directly goes against all moral standards, and cannot be condoned. Except in involuntary manslaughter or accidental deaths, there should be a life prison sentence with no hope of parole, but the government should not stoop to the level of the killer and use execution. Hamurrabi's Code was made thousands of years ago and is seriously out of date in advocating revenge. "Let he who is clean of sin throw the first stone."

I agree that rape and murder are terrible crimes. But what good comes of a life inprisonment? Society is forced to pay for it, meaning that the whole lot of innocent people are forced to support these criminals. What does this do for the victims or their spouse and family?
Absolutely nothing.

All damages, both in material AND emotional sense, have their price. Criminals should be made to pay that debt to their victims or the victims relatives. They should be confronted with the consequences of their act every day and made very aware of the part of their hard earned pay going to those victims.
If the individual is a danger to society, taking them out of society and being put to work in an isolated place is a logical step to take. But I strongly feel they should be working HARD to repair the damages done. Simply punishment by putting them in jail does not work. Studies in Europe and USA show, that 80% of released prisoners will commit crimes again once free; Locking them up for life seems a quick solution to that problem, but making society pay for that is punishing the wrong people!

Also, you cannot fully ignore the reason for committing a crime, not matter how horrible the crime is. Programms like I suggest could involve help, to rehabilitate those people, providing they would be able to pay off their 'debt'.

In a modern society, we should reconsider some old values that have proven to be inefficient.

only the latter

From the pages of Amnesty International:


The Death Penalty

Alleged child offenders awaiting trial, Karachi, Pakistan, June 2003.
© AI
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

It violates the right to life.

It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

As an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights, Amnesty International (AI) works for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty everywhere.

The progress has been dramatic. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at over 75.
Executed "according to law"? The death penalty in China
In view of the profound failings in China's criminal justice system, Amnesty International calls on the Chinese government to impose an immediate moratorium on use of the death penalty. More



Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2004, was co-sponsored by 76 UN member states, one more than in 2003 and the highest number ever.

AI is currently conducting a Stop Child Executions! campaign, aimed at ending the use of the death penalty against child offenders by the end of 2005. AI is also campaigning to abolish the death penalty in West Africa, where only four out of 16 countries have carried out executions in the past 10 years.

AI issues updated information and news of developments, and maintains a library of reports on the death penalty worldwide.

AI is a member of the World Coalition against the Death Penalty, a coalition that unites national and international human rights organizations, bar associations, trade unions and local and regional authorities in an effort to rid the world of the death penalty.

I welcome every US american to read this website, especially reports about the US of A...
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng

Yes, with sugar on top. :)

Should those that commit the crimes of Rape and Murder face the rest of the life behind bars?

Yep. And sometimes it's necessary to make sure that the rest of their life is very, very short. In fact, Cabinian law allows for acquittal from murder charges for "vigilante justice" carried out against rapists and murderers. It allows us to take care of the problem immediately, rather than waiting for the judicial process to take its time. The only problems with this system is that the vigilante must then go through the judicial process to make sure it was a valid case of vigilantism... and they'd damned well better be proven right.

Amnesty International has two causes for focusing on the death penalty:

1) Its failure to be statistically proven to deter crime.

We think this is a fallacy. It is not important that the death penalty deters crime, with the exception of repeat offenses. We make sure the ones who are convicted of one offense can't commit another. Prison is not enough, as anyone familiar with prison murder rates can attest. We also consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment for lesser criminals to be incarcerated with "lifers," who, having nothing further to lose, commit the worst kind of atrocities on their fellow inmates.

2) The possibilities of executing innocent people.

That is countered here in Cabinia with an additional legal requirement. Not only do all jurers have to agree that there is no reasonable doubt, but there also must be incontrovertible physical evidence (ex: blood or semen DNA matches, video footage, photographs) to go with it. None may be condemned to death based on witness reports and circumstantial evidence alone.

Should those that commit the crimes of Rape and Murder face the rest of the life behind bars?

Yes

My good friend was raped and murdered in Melbourne in May. If I ever find the one who did this crime, I shall kill him. All of them deserve this fate.

:D cheers!

My good friend was raped and murdered in Melbourne in May. If I ever find the one who did this crime, I shall kill him. All of them deserve this fate.


Na dude. I think clockwork orange style type of penalty is better. Except you don't let them out of jail. You keep em their forever.

The problem you run into was, did they really do it.

On that reason, I say just stick em in solotary confinement forever.

It has been asked whether life imprisonment is an appropriate penalty
for the crime of murder aggravated by rape.

In the Kingdom of Wrangell, we stand behind our national motto.

"At thirty degrees below zero, at thirty miles an hour of wind, exposed
flesh freezes solid in thirty seconds."

At our latitude, we find this fact to be a useful tool for social control,
applicable to the issue under discussion and to many others.

If they won't play nice, put them outside.

Sincerely, Chairman of the Royal Council.

In a perfect world, there would be no crime. But as anyone can see, we are not in a perfect world.

Firstly, I say that the prison system should be overhauled. Prisoners should WORK while imprisoned, and prisons should do a good deal of securing their needs. There was a time when prisons owned many acres of land surrounding the facility so that they could grow their own food, raise chattel for consumption and dairy products, do their own laundry, scrub their own floors/facilities, worked on chain gangs, ect, ect.

There are people in prison, who besides the bars and inability to leave at their whim, have better housing and food than many poor. Some 'lifetime' criminals have discovered this fact and repeatedly commit crimes so that they may receive such posh benefits. Now aside from a few odd tasks that prisoners do while in prison, much of their time is spent idle. They can, at the taxpayers expense, pursue a college degree, file civil lawsuits, have their names changed, get medical care, and eat three square meals a day. How can anyone call this REHABILITATION?

Secondly, for heinous capital offenses, where there are credible witnesses, furthered by DNA evidence, I feel that the state should put some prisoners to death. No, the death penalty is not across the board. Yes, each case is different. Hence why it is the office of the prosecutors who decide if their evidence can show a crime to be particularly heinous and credible before they can even ask for the death penalty. I would actually like to see LESS time between sentencing and execution when the crime can be proven through credible witnesses and DNA.

Okay, thank you all for answering this forum and taking this so seriously. Now, it's my turn to actually give my opinion on the matter.

Let me start by giving you some basic background information, that you may better understand my stance. One, I do not have any religious beliefs whatsoever. I do not belief in the sanctity or sacredness of life. However, I *do* believe that murder is a crime, if it is the taking of someone else's life intentionally and without their permission or desire. Hence, I do not see euthanasia as a crime, and while punishable, I do not see manslaughter (or, causing someone else's death through accidental means) to be as serious a crime as murder.

Murder, then, in my opinion, is the ending of life processes of another person without the express written consent of that person or that person's legal representative in the event that the person is unable to decide for themselves, and providing the person has previously made written arrangement for this representative to have this legal right over them. Anyone found guilty by physical evidence in a legal court of law during trial by a jury of peers of murder in the first degree, being pre-meditated and intentional murder, shall be sentenced to death by lethal injection to be administered by representatives of the federal government of the Democratic Republic of Chimaeron.

Rape, on the other hand, is another issue. Rape is defined, again in my opinion, as the commission of sexual or indecent acts to include physical contact or penetration, however slight, of any part of the body without the consent of both individuals engaging in the action. Persons not able to give consent by this law include those who are under the age of thirteen (13) years, or those who are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs regardless of age. Any person found guilty of rape by physical evidence in a legal court of law during trial by a jury of peers shall be sentenced to not less than one year in prison, and not greater than life in prison, as determined by the severity of the crime as judged by the prosecuting attorney, judge of the court, and as acted upon by the jury of peers. Factors relating to the severity of the crime include but are not limited to the age of the victim, the age of the culpable, and the aggravated nature of the crime.

Why, then, do I make such a distinction? For one, murder completely ends a person's life, and there is literally nothing that can be done about it. Until such a time as the dead can be brought back, murder shall remain a heinous crime. Rape, on the other hand, while it causes some psychological, and sometimes physical injury, is no more severe than any other form of assault. I know this makes me sound rather cold-hearted, but I have to stick by this. Rape is not about sex, it is about power. Power, that is, in the form of violence. Violence is the root cause of all acts of assault, and therefore, actions such as rape should not result in a greater form of punishment than other actions.

To make my point another way, imagine a very violent person A. This person, for reasons known only to himself, assaults and nearly kills person B. A few hours later, he rapes person C, though he does not cause any other physical harm (such as punching, breaking of bones, etc). Now, person B is hospitalized, probably has to miss work or school while recovering, and also always has to wonder when person A is going to return to "finish the job". This psychological stress, or living in terror, is the same type of psychological damage that results from rape. Therefore, person B has been victimized just as much as person C. Now, obviously, if person A has only just punched person B on the jaw and walked away, or had raped and physically beaten person C, then this would change things based on the aggravated nature of the crime. This I call severity. But, keeping the original scenario intact, you can see how the psychological damage that person C suffers is no different than the psychological damage suffered by person B.

At this point, most people would probably argue that the most horrible thing that can happen to a woman is being raped. This, I think, is a rather troublesome statement for many reasons. One of those reasons is that, in my experience, the majority of people making this statement are men. I think that this stems more from a sexist view in which they see rape as an attack, just as I see it, but somewhat different. Whether they realize it or not, these men see women as a possession. For example, many of them will say "If someone did that to *my* mother/sister/wife/etc" as a condition of saying it. Whether intentional or not (and I believe in many cases it is not) I think this is mostly motivated by what men see as another man invading their "turf". If another man rapes your wife, then I think most men would see this as someone taking advantage of their "territory" or abusing one of their posessions more than anything else. I seriously doubt most men would understand that they are thinking this way, not through a fault of their own, but through a fault of their intrinsic biology. Secondly, I see a problem with this statement in that it very much ignores a whole category of rape, namely that men can be raped as well, either by other men or even by women. I will grant that this is probably less frequent, but then so are assaults of men by other men or women of all types. This doesn't mean they don't happen, however. For those who feel that rapists deserve the death penalty, let me ask you, would you feel the same way if you knew they had "only" raped a man?

For these reasons I differentiate the crimes of rape and murder. I must. Also, for anyone who is curious, and to still any flaming or arguments, I *have* been both raped and physically assaulted and abused by a former spouse. I can attest that the emotional scars of the abuse are far more severe than the emotional scars of the rape. Therefore, in my opinion (and thus in the DR of Chimaeron), rape is a category of assault.

-K
representative to the United Nations,
Democratic Republic of Chimaeron

In a perfect world, there would be no crime. But as anyone can see, we are not in a perfect world.

Firstly, I say that the prison system should be overhauled. Prisoners should WORK while imprisoned, and prisons should do a good deal of securing their needs. There was a time when prisons owned many acres of land surrounding the facility so that they could grow their own food, raise chattel for consumption and dairy products, do their own laundry, scrub their own floors/facilities, worked on chain gangs, ect, ect.

There are people in prison, who besides the bars and inability to leave at their whim, have better housing and food than many poor. Some 'lifetime' criminals have discovered this fact and repeatedly commit crimes so that they may receive such posh benefits. Now aside from a few odd tasks that prisoners do while in prison, much of their time is spent idle. They can, at the taxpayers expense, pursue a college degree, file civil lawsuits, have their names changed, get medical care, and eat three square meals a day. How can anyone call this REHABILITATION?

Secondly, for heinous capital offenses, where there are credible witnesses, furthered by DNA evidence, I feel that the state should put some prisoners to death. No, the death penalty is not across the board. Yes, each case is different. Hence why it is the office of the prosecutors who decide if their evidence can show a crime to be particularly heinous and credible before they can even ask for the death penalty. I would actually like to see LESS time between sentencing and execution when the crime can be proven through credible witnesses and DNA.

I might add it is quite common in the US, amongst many states to have what might be reffered to as "road" or "work" camps that operate in such a capacity, however, the persons you would find there are typically not at the top of the "criminals" list, as you're more likely to find multi-DUI, tractor-thieves, and forgery convics there.... Also, these "camps" tend to hold 150-200 people, and they might make up 1/4 of the overal state prison buildings, a majority of the prisons being made up of units that hold 400 or more convicted of the much more serious crimes. I also might note that the majority of the persons at the camps are there for less then 2 years, and are more likely candidates for rehabilitation then the larger units, overal about 1/16 of the overal prison population is rehabilitated, the rest become what is called "institutionalized" and actually become more likely to reenter crime upon departure then before. (In the US State of Virginia, the average return rate for an inmate is about 1-1.5 years after their release.) In any case, having worked for State Corrections before, I've come to know the liberalistic "rehabilitative" approach is a pointless and vague concept, it is nice to have the rehabilitative capacity present, but no matter how much money is poured into the rehabilitative system, it becomes no more effective, as the largest roadblock to the entirety of the system, is the will of the inmate to cooperate in the rehabilitation of themselves.

I have seen and I am aware that chain gangs are not completely gone from our corrections systems. However, they are limited to certain areas, and do not fulfill the variety of tasks that they once did.

OOC: In my own state of Tennessee, chain gangs are only for minor offenders, mostly related to driving offenses, that go out during the day and pick up trash from some of the busiest highways. Since there is relatively little possibility of a car stopping on said roads, and the fact that this punishment would usually ensure that the convicted spend considerable less time, then they are not likely to make a run for it.

IC:Institutionalization is a problem for many people in the corrections system. I still believe however, that they should do more to keep themselves in food, shelter and luxuries. Daily work programs that include farming, the care of chattel, egg collecting from hens, weeding and other yard maintenance, and laundry should all be re-instituted to the penal system. Far too many prisoners are getting benefits for doing nothing and its eating away at taxpayer monies.

While many correction systems have implemented a "charge" per diem for incarcerated prisoners, there is currently no real means of collection for this system.

OOC: In Pasco County, FL, inmates at the local jail are charged $1.50/day for their basic food/shelter and additional funds for hygeine products, underwear, shoes, and ammenities. However, inmates who transfer from the jail to probation or parole do not have those accumulated fees added back into their monthly supervision costs. Nor do the courts currently charge that they be paid in their restitution fees. In short, the system has nothing set for itself to actually recoup those fees.

IC: Institutionalization used to be a problem faced by prisoners who spent decades in the penal system. It saddens me that the number of years to such events has so drastically dropped. Do you think perhaps part of that reason is that prisoners can often find themselves in better beds, with more comforts than they did on the outside? Maybe this is also why they have less desire to be "rehabilitated".

Thats why we cant ever let the U.N. take our right to have the death penalty!!!!!!!!!!