NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright here is the situation at hand.
In a government, what measures should they take to take care of their criminals? Should they simply execute them or make them pay for their crime?

If you execute them you are just getting rid of them and letting them escape without having to pay for the crime they have done (considereing it is a bad crime such as murder or molestation). My personal idea is to confine them to a cubicle with no windows, just a toilet and a slot for food. Then you let them sit there and never leave basicaly going insane because they have absolutely no contact with the outside world or see it at all. All though if you keep them alive you would have to have taxes in order to pays the fees in which is required to keep that criminal alive.



So im asking you if it is better to simply execute them and be done with them, or confine them to a cubicle for the rest of their lifes to go insane paying for what they have comited?

Some would argue that execution IS payment for a crime. They kill someone, you kill them, you know.

For the best (worst?) of both worlds, there's always execution by starvation.

And this really isn't a topic for the WA forum. More like general or something.

enslaving them to their victums is one possibility. depending on the severity of the crime. i know perminent exile sounds like making them someone else's problem, but there's always the chance they may, once given the chance, want to get their act togather to avoid further legal intanglements and or exiles.

these two togather, greatly reduce the cost of 'criminal justice'. indentured community service, appropriate to the specifics of the crime, are another.

then there's something called "distraint", which in simplest terms means denying, effectively and completely denying, access to something as a punishment.

and punishments are neccessary, to avoid sending the message that whatever the crime, would have been alright after all. however, deterance only deters individuals, not the act, whatever that act might be, itself.

sometimes it even exerbates its frequence, or gets governments involved in its corruption. by making the act, certain acts either more lucrative, or narrowing the field of compitition, both incentives to commission of the crime rather then disincentives against it.

thus it makes sense to avoid criminalizing acts that are too popular. if a demand cannot be filled lawfully, and its a sufficient and real demand, it is inevitable that demand will then be filled unlawfully, no matter what the nature or severity of the punishment.

and it gets worse, that in tern gives rise to highly profitable criminal organizations, whose power in time corrupts the governemnts that outlawed their fields of endevour.

of course some acts just cannot be legalized if people want not be constantly beaten over the head by each other, so there is matter of sense and ballance to consider in what to outlaw and what not to.

and thus generally, to outlaw mere possession, in personal quanitities, of any article or substance, is not such a very good idea. not to mention the opportunities, even probability, of unreasonable searches and ceasures this gives rise to.

to sumarize, and get back on track, the best thing one can actually hope to accomplish with a high probability, is simply to deny the perpetrator oppertunities to repeat their crime. that's what it really comes down to, more then any theory of deterance, which vengence is not.

denying opportunity to repeat the offence, coupled with opportunities to replace the motivation for committing it with something more mutually bennificial to both the offender and the rest of society.

Or you could just brand them across the face so that everyone knows they're a criminal.

Is there any legislation being developed in this thread or is it merely some kind of depraved philosophical debate? If so it should be taken elsewhere.


yours e.t.c. ,

I think the general insanity in this thread already has proved that you aren't going to get concensus on any proposal.

In our nation, convicted criminals are required to confess their sin and submit voluntarily to whatever penance has been adjudicated for them. If not, they face the fate of outlawry, and the less said about that, the better.

We're not sure that a meaningful WA proposal could be made around this custom; as advantagious as we see it, it seems to be particular to our culture.

Alright here is the situation at hand.
In a government, what measures should they take to take care of their criminals? Should they simply execute them or make them pay for their crime?

In Rutianas, it depends on the crime.

If the crime has to do with the murder, exploitation, molestation, etc, of children, the death penalty is used. Of course, we're thorough with the investigation. If there's even a sliver of doubt, the person in question will likely still be convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Any other crimes are dealt with by incarceration and rehabilitation. For the more violent crimes, it's likely that it will be life in prison. For the non-violent crimes, rehabilitation.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas

um.. i think confining them in a small box would be only using up tax payer money to keep criminals alive. and you can't do anything such as enslaving them because, it shows your no better than the prisoner. anyway, i think capital punishment should be issued based on the crime.

Absent proposed legislation, I think this thread is in the wrong forum.

Equalls, if you want a general discussion, post in the General forum. This is for WA business.

Topic closed.