NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_DEATH?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Kiddie touchers, no biggy ;)

i think public floggins would be more effective for these people. I don't think the death penalty is justified in this case.

i believe they should have the most painful death penalty and make the family watch to make them feel srry for what they did

recidivism rate is like 86% death or exile

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_DEATH?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Yeah Death

While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

You could argue that locking someone away for life is cruel and unusual. I've heard it argued that the death penalty is more humane. But in my opinion, it really boils down to what you view the purpose of prison to be. Is it supposed to be punishment, or an attempt at rehabilitation? If it is an attempt at rehabilitation, and many "experts" believe sexual predators to be non-rehabilitatable, then putting them in prison is a waste of time/effort/resources. Also, in that circumstance (prison is a rehabilitation attempt not a punishment) it is a waste to put anyone away for the duration of their remaining lifetime. A bullet and a bonfire are a lot more efficient than keeping someone who cannot be "fixed" in prison. If you view prison as punishment, then disregard this post.

Some people may deserve death, but that by no means entitles anyone to give it to them.

exile em to an island with 2 weeks of food and water with a lighter and as the boat leave there you just :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_DEATH?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
Bad law. What's the motive for a molester to ever leave a live kid behind? My uneducated and uninformed inclination is toward chemical castration, instead.

how about using bolt cutters? and doing it in a public square, without anasthetic

Child molesters aren't acting on choice, and the majority of repeat offenders can't be treated. Thus, the desire for punishment - understandable as it is - is pure vengeance. Aside from the fact that most of them aren't children, you're advocating abuse on the same level as they are - the only difference is that you can help it while they can't.

Unless you're prepared to have others render death sentences on your own head, for whatever cumpulsions you have, I think you should think twice about advocating the murder of paedophiles.

Isolate them. Ensure they'll never ever have an opportunity to act on their vile desires. But be humane. You're talking about killing the sick. While it's sure to solve the problem, it creates a slew of others. For example, why not kill people with untreatable skin diseases? Or handicapped people? What about killing you for the particular personality you have? Or putting you through life long hell for it?

I consider rapists, pedophiles, and serial murderers to be worthy of death. It's also beneficial for me, because I don't have to pay as much tax to keep the bastards alive in a prison.

Child molesters aren't acting on choice, and the majority of repeat offenders can't be treated. Thus, the desire for punishment - understandable as it is - is pure vengeance. Aside from the fact that most of them aren't children, you're advocating abuse on the same level as they are - the only difference is that you can help it while they can't.

Unless you're prepared to have others render death sentences on your own head, for whatever cumpulsions you have, I think you should think twice about advocating the murder of paedophiles.

Isolate them. Ensure they'll never ever have an opportunity to act on their vile desires. But be humane. You're talking about killing the sick. While it's sure to solve the problem, it creates a slew of others. For example, why not kill people with untreatable skin diseases? Or handicapped people? What about killing you for the particular personality you have? Or putting you through life long hell for it?
They can help it. One doesn't need to act on his compulsions. Shit, if I acted on every antisocial impulse I ever got my commute to work would be littered with run-over pedestrians and cars riddled with bullet holes.

By that logic I should be campaigning for the elimination of school children to reduce my tax bill

By that logic I should be campaigning for the elimination of school children to reduce my tax bill


Difference is, vast majority of school children tend not to rape and murder people.

Put 'em in the stocks once a week and give the public rotten tomatoes to through at them. After a day of punishment, return the kiddie touchers to their little cells to think about what they did - of course, with no chance of parole ever.

It's the tiny dangeours minority that causes all the problems

The death penalty would be completely voluntary. You get to chose between life in prison without the possibility of parole, or we will put you to death in a humane painless manner. No electric chair I am talking breathing nitrogen through a mask for an hour. Painless and efficient because the breath reflex is triddered by too much CO2 and not a lack of Oxygen.

I am sure people would say that the prisoners would be encouraged to take the death penalty, and while that is true they just need to say no if they want to not die. These people would already have been convicted and in essence allowed to chose between two punishments.

I know I would chose death over imprisoniment.

-Koolkat

By that logic I should be campaigning for the elimination of school children to reduce my tax bill

We know that the majority of children will benefit society and pay far more back in tax and other contributions. Whats one of these people ever going to do?

Personally I don't care about vengence or punishment, just whatever protects the general population and benefits us most. (IE - Lowest chance to re-offend and least cost to society) If it was guarentteed the death penalty did that I may consider it for such mentally destroyed people. I really don't know the best solution reallly, but who does.

recidivism rate is like 86% death or exile
Link? Source?

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_DEATH?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
I know the feeling I have the same Dilema

But personaly I also dislike using the prison general population to punish criminals in ways society wants but is too weak to do itself
These other prisoners would only be carrying out societies expectations but would still get the punishment for killing another inmate

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_DEATH?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

I think there are some higher callings than our own personal moralities. One of those higher callings, has to be to protect our citizens... especially our children.

If that requires a form of 'justice' that is beyond the stomach of some of the society, that is unfortunate, but should not be allowed to interfere with the necessity of the actions.

Paedophiles, rapists and those that kill in other than self-defense, should be prepared to face a death sentence.

I'm not advocating torture or brutality, I am advocating a 'humane' last rite - a solution to the problem of a dangerous predator in a civilised society.

I don't believe in the death penalty for anyone.

Life imprisionment is a far worse punishment imho. :)

I consider rapists, pedophiles, and serial murderers to be worthy of death. It's also beneficial for me, because I don't have to pay as much tax to keep the bastards alive in a prison.
I'm so sick of posting this on these kind of debates, but here goes ... it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for a hundred years! So enough about "paying tax to keep the bastards alive in prison"!

Right, that's that refuted, now onto the main thrust of the argument.

1) Being found guilty by a jury is no guarantee of guilt; you can free someone from prison if new evidence comes to light proving them to be innocent, but you cannot resurrect an executed convict.

2) Paedophilia is a sickness. Of course those who rape children are in the wrong, terribly so; hell, a friend of mine, at the age of 13, was chatted up on the Internet by a guy who turned out to be 50, so I know the hatred felt by those involved with these bastards. But paedophilia is a mental illness, and perhaps it can be treated; being that these people have no control over the way they are, and being that they are still human beings, despite their crimes, should we not give them the chance to redeem themselves?

3) Using the emotive topic of child sex to justify the death penalty takes the debate away from rational areas. It's easy, in a debate like this one, for those on the side of the death penalty to say "why would you want to keep a pedo alive? Do you want your children to get raped?" etc. etc. But the fact is, when you say you are in favour of the death penalty for child molesters, you are not only arguing for child molesters to be executed, you are also arguing for other types of criminal being killed. I believe that one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is the American justice system - people executed with very strong, even conclusive, evidence of innocence, black people being more likely to get the death penalty for comparable crimes than white people. A man with a mental age of two and a half years was executed in America, and was visibly unable to comprehend the meanings of his crime or the coming punishment.

4) Let one without sin cast the first stone.

There is always a danger of executing innocent people - even if they have a previous conviction. And that is unacceptable.

I'm so sick of posting this on these kind of debates, but here goes ... it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for a hundred years! So enough about "paying tax to keep the bastards alive in prison"!


No - it really doesn't.

Axe, reasonably sharp... @ $5.

Headsman, minimum wage... @ $5.

So - total cost of 'death penalty', about 10 bucks, give or take.

You are confusing all the padding and rigmarole that has become PART OF the circus, with the actual event.

There is always a danger of executing innocent people - even if they have a previous conviction. And that is unacceptable.

To you.

But then, why should YOUR lack of stomach for the risk, affect the justice of an entire nation?

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_DEATH?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

I don't think thats a good compromise. One, it relies on what is supposedly a flaw with imprisonment (inability to prevent prisoners from being violent, unruly, criminal) as a means to punish lawfully convicted. Two, there's no guarantee that kid touchers will be unable to survive in a prison environment. It's widely said that kid touchers get abused by other prisoners, but do they? I've never seen any statistics on it, and I imagine that violent, depraved individuals would be able to survive in a system populated with violent, depraved individuals.

It's why I oppose the anti-death penalty argument that imprisoning someone is better because you can reverse the punishment just in case you convicted someone who is innocent. That doesn't make sense - if you're killed or raped in prison, can that be reversed? And yet being abused or killed in prison is exactly what you suggest happens, and should happen (to kid touchers).

Might as well just advocate the death penalty for that sort of crime. And others too while we're at it. :)

Why would you let some cerial rapist or killer have a 'humane' way out? They did not show the same respect for there victums. I would not consider these offenders to even be worth a 'humane exicution' but rather one that reflected their crime.

with people like that they should be sent to prison for life. in prison sex offenders are seen as the worst of the worst and so get the shit kicked in them, but child sex offenders get so much shit kicked into them its unbelievable.
so what i feel should be done in, move them into a prison for a few months and then when the inmates have got bored of kicking the shit in them, move the person to the next prison and let the cycle happen again.
much like the circle of life........man i love the lion king

Why would you let some cerial rapist or killer have a 'humane' way out? They did not show the same respect for there victums. I would not consider these offenders to even be worth a 'humane exicution' but rather one that reflected their crime.

If this was directed to me...

I would choose 'humane' execution, because I'm looking at the pragmatic removal of a problem, not the emotion of revenge.

I still think it's a bad idea to allow the state to end the lives of it's citizens. Yes, even kiddy touchers. If they can't be rehabilitated then lock them up until they die.

with people like that they should be sent to prison for life. in prison sex offenders are seen as the worst of the worst and so get the shit kicked in them, but child sex offenders get so much shit kicked into them its unbelievable.
so what i feel should be done in, move them into a prison for a few months and then when the inmates have got bored of kicking the shit in them, move the person to the next prison and let the cycle happen again.
much like the circle of life........man i love the lion king
Why should we let other inmates do (and get punished for actions) that we as a society are too week to cary out ourselfs?

Start a poll.

I still think it's a bad idea to allow the state to end the lives of it's citizens. Yes, even kiddy touchers. If they can't be rehabilitated then lock them up until they die.

I think we should electrocute them.

That doesn't make sense - if you're killed or raped in prison, can that be reversed?

The difference is that being raped or killed in prison isn't part of societies punishment. If anything, it's a weakness of the prison system, and one that needs reform.

I think we should electrocute them.

Why?

The difference is that being raped or killed in prison isn't part of societies punishment. If anything, it's a weakness of the prison system, and one that needs reform.

Ah, but convicting the innocent isn't part of societies punishment either. That's a weakness of the justice system that needs reform.

Why?

To remove the unrehabilitable from society.

To remove the unrehabilitable from society.
How do you know if someone is unrehabilitatable if you dont give them the chance to rehabilitate

Child molesters aren't acting on choice, and the majority of repeat offenders can't be treated. Thus, the desire for punishment - understandable as it is - is pure vengeance. Aside from the fact that most of them aren't children, you're advocating abuse on the same level as they are - the only difference is that you can help it while they can't.

Unless you're prepared to have others render death sentences on your own head, for whatever cumpulsions you have, I think you should think twice about advocating the murder of paedophiles.

Isolate them. Ensure they'll never ever have an opportunity to act on their vile desires. But be humane. You're talking about killing the sick. While it's sure to solve the problem, it creates a slew of others. For example, why not kill people with untreatable skin diseases? Or handicapped people? What about killing you for the particular personality you have? Or putting you through life long hell for it?

Anyone who commits crimes, who has the excuse that "I couldn't help myself", needs to be put to death immediately.

They are like rabid dogs. They are definitely not civilized human beings.

Anyone who does not have enough self-control to stop him/herself from killing people, raping, molesting children, etc., cannot be rehabilitated.

They must be permanently removed from society. "Life imprisonment" in the USA does not necessarily mean life. So I say, execution is the only way to be sure.:sniper:

To you.

But then, why should YOUR lack of stomach for the risk, affect the justice of an entire nation?
:rolleyes:

I totally agree with Ruloah

Some people may deserve death, but that by no means entitles anyone to give it to them.
Well said.

snip

Anyone who does not have enough self-control to stop him/herself from killing people, raping, molesting children, etc., cannot be rehabilitated.
snip

Too bad there are such people that are rehabilitated all the time ...

:rolleyes:

Well, thanks for the in depth response...

Well, thanks for the in depth response...
What did you expect? There is no justice in wrongful executions.

What did you expect? There is no justice in wrongful executions.

There's no justice in wrongful imprisonment either. The fact that you are OK with one and not the other just shows you have an inconsistent view about justice.

There's no justice in wrongful imprisonment either. The fact that you are OK with one and not the other just shows you have an inconsistent view about justice.
:rolleyes: No it doesn't.
Just because I don't accept one form of punishment (execution) but accept another (imprisonment), this doesn't have any bearing upon my views on justice.

The thing is that capital punishment is a form of punishment that is truly irreversible and irreparable. One cannot return the wrongfully executed to life. On the other hand, the wrongfully imprisoned person can be released and can be offered some form of compensation.

A person is more likely to undertake desparate acts as the penalty for not undertaking them increases.

If paedophilia is punishable by death, and the person can not or does not control that compulsion, then to avoid death they are much likely to go to an even more desparate act to cover up their crime.

Such as killing the witness.

No - it really doesn't.

Axe, reasonably sharp... @ $5.

Headsman, minimum wage... @ $5.

So - total cost of 'death penalty', about 10 bucks, give or take.

You are confusing all the padding and rigmarole that has become PART OF the circus, with the actual event.

With a little imagination this could become a revenue raising excercise rather than a cost. sentence to death by stoning and then charge $10 a stone.

What did you expect? There is no justice in wrongful executions.

I didn't say a wrongful execution was just. But you can't make an ommlette without slaughtering millions of innocent people. Or something.

:rolleyes: No it doesn't.
Just because I don't accept one form of punishment (execution) but accept another (imprisonment), this doesn't have any bearing upon my views on justice.

The thing is that capital punishment is a form of punishment that is truly irreversible and irreparable. One cannot return the wrongfully executed to life. On the other hand, the wrongfully imprisoned person can be released and can be offered some form of compensation.

No - I think Trostia is right.

The sentence isn't the problem... according to your claimed argument... you seem to identify the fault as being that an innocent might get killed.

So - the fault is in the system that leads TO the sentence, and I agree.

Unless, of course - the argument you presented is just a cover for the REAL argument... like, you just don't LIKE the death-penalty idea.

With a little imagination this could become a revenue raising excercise rather than a cost. sentence to death by stoning and then charge $10 a stone.

Sounds like a good idea to me - so long as there are controls on the system to stop people being executed JUST for the revenue...

:rolleyes: No it doesn't.
Just because I don't accept one form of punishment (execution) but accept another (imprisonment), this doesn't have any bearing upon my views on justice.

...yeah, if we assume that justice has absolutely nothing to do with punishments in the justice system.

I don't make that assumption.


The thing is that capital punishment is a form of punishment that is truly irreversible and irreparable. One cannot return the wrongfully executed to life. On the other hand, the wrongfully imprisoned person can be released and can be offered some form of compensation.

...if you assume that no one who is imprisoned winds up dying there.

But it happens.

So imprisonment can be truly irreversible and irreparable as well. For the innocent who get imprisoned, it's tough luck. You accept it though. You know that this happens, and you have no problems accepting imprisonment as a form of punishment. Hence, your inconsistency.

And I myself don't think being without my freedom for, oh, say 20 years, is "reversible" or "reparable" even without the death and injury aspect. But I know I place a higher value on my time and freedom than others do.

No - I think Trostia is right.

The sentence isn't the problem... according to your claimed argument... you seem to identify the fault as being that an innocent might get killed.

So - the fault is in the system that leads TO the sentence, and I agree.

Unless, of course - the argument you presented is just a cover for the REAL argument... like, you just don't LIKE the death-penalty idea.
The fault is indeed in the system that leads to the sentence, as you say. It is a system that relies on humans, and it is a system that will make a mistake. As long as the system is not 100% certain of convicting the right person in all cases, I will oppose the death penalty.

The sentence in itself is not the problem, no. The possibility of wrongful executions is.
...yeah, if we assume that justice has absolutely nothing to do with punishments in the justice system.

I don't make that assumption.
Even without making that assumption, my arguement stands.

The punishment should be proportional to the crime - I wouldn't accept a fine as punishment for a murder either, for example. Remember that execution is an extraordinary form of punishment in western legal systems.

...if you assume that no one who is imprisoned winds up dying there.

But it happens.
And that is one of the problems with the prison system - and not a part of the punishment.


So imprisonment can be truly irreversible and irreparable as well. For the innocent who get imprisoned, it's tough luck. You accept it though. You know that this happens, and you have no problems accepting imprisonment as a form of punishment. Hence, your inconsistency.
I disagree with it being truly irreversible - because, as I said, the inmate has a possibility of being released, but the executed cannot be returned to life.

I see no inconsistency in my arguement. There is always the risk of punishing an innocent person - it is an inherrent flaw in the legal system which must be accepted, else there could be no legal system - but we can reduce the damages a wrongful punishment will cause.

And the guilty will be punished, as a lifetime in jail is certainly a proportional punishment for even murder.

And I myself don't think being without my freedom for, oh, say 20 years, is "reversible" or "reparable" even without the death and injury aspect. But I know I place a higher value on my time and freedom than others do.
Yup, so there is a difference of philosophy between us. I'd like to walk out of jail alive after being found innocent 10 years after my conviction, while you seem to prefer to be dead instead of being locked up those 10 years.

Bad law. What's the motive for a molester to ever leave a live kid behind? My uneducated and uninformed inclination is toward chemical castration, instead.


Now for child molesters, THAT is a fine idea.

Now for child molesters, THAT is a fine idea.
If it was about sex yes (well compleatly about sex)

As far as I have seen it does not really reduce molsetation urges

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

Europe doesn't need the death penalty so neither does America.

Some people may deserve death, but that by no means entitles anyone to give it to them.

Too true.

What is your soultion to this with a near total recidivism rate?

Ah, but convicting the innocent isn't part of societies punishment either. That's a weakness of the justice system that needs reform.

school kids grow up to be taxpayers themselves while the pedophile is merely a burden.


Difference is, vast majority of school children tend not to rape and murder people.

I completely disagree with the death penalty being used fro pedophiles.I think there should be some sort of rehab,like they have for drug addicts, for the ones who can be treated,and after completion of this program these offenfers should be monitored at all times. Whether this is possible, I dont know, but thats what I think should be done.

Now for the repeat offenders who can't be treated, I say lock them away in a mental institution, away from any contact with the outside world.

With a little imagination this could become a revenue raising excercise rather than a cost. sentence to death by stoning and then charge $10 a stone.

And put it on PPV!

It costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for a hundred years.
No - it really doesn't.

Axe, reasonably sharp... @ $5.

Headsman, minimum wage... @ $5.

So - total cost of 'death penalty', about 10 bucks, give or take.

You are confusing all the padding and rigmarole that has become PART OF the circus, with the actual event.
By "padding and rigmarole", I assume you mean the appeals process.

Considering the number of innocent people who have died on Death Row even after a full appeals process, I think you would have to have very little consideration indeed for your fellow human beings to want to reduce people's right to appeal.

But then, why should YOUR lack of stomach for the risk, affect the justice of an entire nation?
It is not "lack of stomach", it is a pragmatic, humanistic consideration for other people. If your principles include the principle that innocent people dying is wrong, of course the death penalty will be a cause for concern.

Go find yourself a decent argument, then come back.

Here's my view on the sentances different criminals should face:

Summary Offences (first): Community service, repay victims
Summary Offences (2-15): Community service, repay victims, weekly "Community Education Sessions" (offenders meet in groups of 10-15 to discuss community involvement, education, career planning, and emotional wellnees).

Indictable Offences (offender examined by pyschiatrist and found to be sane with NO personality disorders) , More than 15 Summary Offences: A stay at a "Rehabilitation Centre. Inmates will take courses on basic math/reading/writing, canadian history and culture, emotional wellness, and career planning. In order to regain admittance into society, inmates must pass (65% or higher) exams on academic subjects, and then give a presentation showing that they have developed a plan to get back on track.
Indictable Offences (offender has signs of a mental illness or personality disorder, or offender repeatedly attends rehabilitation centre with no sign of improvement): Permanent Care Facility. Inmates live in a healthy, safe enviroment, with access to some entertainment, and are given extensive therapy. Out of a concern to the safety of society, inmates are never released.

Here's my view on the sentances different criminals should face:

Summary Offences (first): Community service, repay victims
Summary Offences (2-15): Community service, repay victims, weekly "Community Education Sessions" (offenders meet in groups of 10-15 to discuss community involvement, education, career planning, and emotional wellnees).

Indictable Offences (offender examined by pyschiatrist and found to be sane with NO personality disorders) , More than 15 Summary Offences: A stay at a "Rehabilitation Centre. Inmates will take courses on basic math/reading/writing, canadian history and culture, emotional wellness, and career planning. In order to regain admittance into society, inmates must pass (65% or higher) exams on academic subjects, and then give a presentation showing that they have developed a plan to get back on track.
Indictable Offences (offender has signs of a mental illness or personality disorder, or offender repeatedly attends rehabilitation centre with no sign of improvement): Permanent Care Facility. Inmates live in a healthy, safe enviroment, with access to some entertainment, and are given extensive therapy. Out of a concern to the safety of society, inmates are never released.

*comments witheld until he sees the bill*

*comments witheld until he sees the bill*

By bill, do you mean law or cost?

By bill, do you mean law or cost?

Cost. *nodnod*

Cost. *nodnod*

I can't imagine it would actually be much more expensive than the current system. It may require a bit more money per inmate, per year, but, generally, the stays would be shorter than prison stays, and it's likely more effective (repeat offences should drop).
In addition, other, cheaper programs could be implemented to decrease crime (eg: giving small rewards to those who actively follow the law, and encouraging emotionally maturity in high school).

Some people may deserve death, but that by no means entitles anyone to give it to them.
This is my dilemma to on the issue. Some people shouldn't even have been born, but I do not like the idea of a government (especially a majoritarian one) having the power to take its citizens lives.

I can't imagine it would actually be much more expensive than the current system. It may require a bit more money per inmate, per year, but, generally, the stays would be shorter than prison stays, and it's likely more effective (repeat offences should drop).
In addition, other, cheaper programs could be implemented to decrease crime (eg: giving small rewards to those who actively follow the law, and encouraging emotionally maturity in high school).

Eh, fair enough. The price tag's a job to save for someone else.

Eh, fair enough. The price tag's a job to save for someone else.

Well, I'm not a financial expert, so I certainly can't give you a solid estimate.

Well, I'm not a financial expert, so I certainly can't give you a solid estimate.

I'd imagine...Start a thread looking for financial experts.






Beep.

Well, I'm not a fan of the death penalty because I don't trust the government to do it properly. There is far too much a chance of an innocent person being sentenced. The only time I believe the death penalty should apply is when someone is trying to rob you and you shoot them.

Since Michigan was the first democracy in the world to abolish the death penalty (in 1847) I'm not that concerned.

I would prefer that the state construct a maximum security facility in the center of Lake Superior. If you manage to get out of the prison, you're certainly not making it to shore.

By "padding and rigmarole", I assume you mean the appeals process.

Considering the number of innocent people who have died on Death Row even after a full appeals process...

The appeals process is certainly a large part of it, yes. That and the incarceration BEFORE the penalty is carried out, etc.

We should allow a death penalty where guilt is certain...which is what the law is SUPPOSEED to be ascertaining, already. If that isn't happening, the flaw is in the system.

But, perhaps the sytem could be tiered? Repeat offenders are MUCH less likely to be convicted in error, I think... so how about instituting a death penalty on repeat offenders in the violent crime categories?


I think you would have to have very little consideration indeed for your fellow human beings to want to reduce people's right to appeal.


On the contrary - I want people within our societies to be free and able to continue their lives unmolested by these evil elements. I'm all about consideration. I just think that murderers, rapists and child-abusers have decided to step OUTSIDE of our societal safetyzone, and thus do not deserve the same 'right to life' enoyed by decent people.

SUre - some innocents may get swept-up in the mix... but it would be a small price to pay.. And, again - that is the fault of the court and law SYSTEM, not the punishment.


It is not "lack of stomach", it is a pragmatic, humanistic consideration for other people. If your principles include the principle that innocent people dying is wrong, of course the death penalty will be a cause for concern.

Go find yourself a decent argument, then come back.

Rubbish - it is nothing to do with 'pragmatism', and is CERTAINLY nothing related to humanistic consideration for other people.

Pragmatism would say that you destroy the threats. Humanistic concern would argue that you protect the people.

It is ALL about a society that has become weakened, and too squeamish to institute it's own justice.

You may not find my argument 'decent'... by which, one assumes you question the quality, rather than the propriety? I won't lose sleep over your concerns... the argument is not made poor by your dislike of it.

It's a good argument, you just can't stomach it - so, rather than fight it, you hide.

What about the human cost? The victims???


I can't imagine it would actually be much more expensive than the current system. It may require a bit more money per inmate, per year, but, generally, the stays would be shorter than prison stays, and it's likely more effective (repeat offences should drop).
In addition, other, cheaper programs could be implemented to decrease crime (eg: giving small rewards to those who actively follow the law, and encouraging emotionally maturity in high school).

I support the death penalty because I feel that it is a proportional punishment to the crime of murder. A life for a life. I am not so sure that it is proportional to child molestation ( evil as it is).

Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm kind of against the death penalty, but for some criminals I find my opposition to the death penalty to be rather weak. South Carolina has passed a law that would allow the death penalty to be used for repeat child molesters. While I hate the idea of the state killing people that can be confined for life and no longer pose a danger to society, I hate kid touchers more. Maybe a better compromise would be to put repeat kiddy diddlers in prison's general population for life with no possibility for parole and no chance of being put in protective custody.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEX_OFFENDERS_DEATH?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

I believe that if there's a death Penalty, it should be done by bullet, and one of the Victims or (In the case of murder) one that the victim was closest too, pulls the trigger, if they don't shoot the guilty one, then they just get life instead.

There is always a danger of executing innocent people - even if they have a previous conviction. And that is unacceptable.

So? There's the danger of locking away an innocent person in prison for many, many, many years, where he could be raped, or worse.

Point?

So? There's the danger of locking away an innocent person in prison for many, many, many years, where he could be raped, or worse.

Point?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11071045&postcount=50

Also, prison rape is not a part of the punishment.

Here's my view on the sentances different criminals should face:

Summary Offences (first): Community service, repay victims
Summary Offences (2-15): Community service, repay victims, weekly "Community Education Sessions" (offenders meet in groups of 10-15 to discuss community involvement, education, career planning, and emotional wellnees).

Indictable Offences (offender examined by pyschiatrist and found to be sane with NO personality disorders) , More than 15 Summary Offences: A stay at a "Rehabilitation Centre. Inmates will take courses on basic math/reading/writing, canadian history and culture, emotional wellness, and career planning. In order to regain admittance into society, inmates must pass (65% or higher) exams on academic subjects, and then give a presentation showing that they have developed a plan to get back on track.
Indictable Offences (offender has signs of a mental illness or personality disorder, or offender repeatedly attends rehabilitation centre with no sign of improvement): Permanent Care Facility. Inmates live in a healthy, safe enviroment, with access to some entertainment, and are given extensive therapy. Out of a concern to the safety of society, inmates are never released.
Wait, I don't quite understand. Could you perhaps clarify by examples, like what you think the punishment should be for, say, drunk driving, rape and murder? (As three different cases, not one... ;) )

We should allow a death penalty where guilt is certain...which is what the law is SUPPOSEED to be ascertaining, already. If that isn't happening, the flaw is in the system.

And while the system is flawed, wouldn't it be best to put a stop to the killing until the system is perfected?

Will the system ever be perfected? I doubt it.

But, perhaps the sytem could be tiered? Repeat offenders are MUCH less likely to be convicted in error, I think... so how about instituting a death penalty on repeat offenders in the violent crime categories?

It is still not unheard of for people to be convicted in error for repeat offences. Especially if they fit the stereotype of a "criminal".

On the contrary - I want people within our societies to be free and able to continue their lives unmolested by these evil elements. I'm all about consideration. I just think that murderers, rapists and child-abusers have decided to step OUTSIDE of our societal safetyzone, and thus do not deserve the same 'right to life' enoyed by decent people.

I rather hate this idea of the "decent people" - people who commit crimes almost always are the people who have been denied the opportunities that the spoilt, cotton-wool packed "decent people" have had. The fault is all too often with society.

SUre - some innocents may get swept-up in the mix... but it would be a small price to pay..

Don't ever, ever describe innocent lives as "a small price to pay" again. People cannot be reduced in this way, people's lives are always important. You maggot, you know it's not your own life you'd be sacrificing for this "societal safetyzone".

And, again - that is the fault of the court and law SYSTEM, not the punishment.

So - sort out the court and law system before killing any more people.

Rubbish - it is nothing to do with 'pragmatism', and is CERTAINLY nothing related to humanistic consideration for other people.

Pragmatism would say that you destroy the threats. Humanistic concern would argue that you protect the people.

Your tone makes it clear that you do not consider criminals to be people. That is where we differ.

I believe to my soul that people deserve a second chance, that even in the case of a "mistake" as massive as a murder or rape, that people can atone for their mistakes. I am not religious, but I do believe that a human personality is a sacred thing.

It is ALL about a society that has become weakened, and too squeamish to institute it's own justice.

I hate to repeat myself ... but it is NOT squeamishness. We are not afraid of the sight of blood. We do not oppose the death penalty simply because we are sickened by the thought of people dying. We oppose it because we recognise that people being killed, by a government that claims to protect the people, all of the people, is not justified by any crime under the sun.

You may not find my argument 'decent'... by which, one assumes you question the quality, rather than the propriety?

That's right.

I won't lose sleep over your concerns... the argument is not made poor by your dislike of it.

No. It's made poor by how poor it is.

It's a good argument, you just can't stomach it

Stop talking about stomach. Who do you think you are going to impress - "I'm a big man, I've got the [fucking] "stomach" to advocate the death penalty. You macho twat.

so, rather than fight it, you hide.

If I was hiding, I wouldn't have posted this.

Okay - before I start on your 'arguments'... I do not appreciate being flamed, my friend.

You call me a "Macho twat"? You call me a "Maggot"?

You resort to bad language... you imply that my take on the death penalty is some attempt to make myself appear 'bigger'? (""I'm a big man, I've got the [fucking] "stomach" to advocate the death penalty"...)

If you cannot 'play the game' in a reasonable manner, you might want to return to the bleachers.


And while the system is flawed, wouldn't it be best to put a stop to the killing until the system is perfected?

Will the system ever be perfected? I doubt it.


By THIS logic - since people sometimes get convicted of crimes they didn't commit... shouldn't we stop imprisoning people until the system is perfect, too?

Indeed - if the system is SO flawed, surely we should stop arresting people, too?


It is still not unheard of for people to be convicted in error for repeat offences. Especially if they fit the stereotype of a "criminal".


Really? This is common? You think a lot of INNOCENT people serve time for murder, on a number of occassions?


I rather hate this idea of the "decent people" - people who commit crimes almost always are the people who have been denied the opportunities that the spoilt, cotton-wool packed "decent people" have had. The fault is all too often with society.


And I say, "rubbish". I was one of those underpriviliged. Too often there was no food on the table. A rented home in a council estate. But, I didn't turn out a criminal - and I do not accept the 'excuses' of those that did.

Plus - I just don't believe the facts back you up. Wynona Ryder is poor and underpriviliged? ENRON was a poor man's club?


Don't ever, ever describe innocent lives as "a small price to pay" again.


What is this? Threatening me? "Don't ever"? Or... what exactly? You are threatening me over an anonymous medium, no less...?


People cannot be reduced in this way, people's lives are always important. You maggot, you know it's not your own life you'd be sacrificing for this "societal safetyzone".


I have said before, when this topic has come up, that (while I wouldn't like it) I would be willing to take the same risks as everyone else. Would I want to die for a crime I didn't commit? Of COURSE not. Would I accept that, if it meant that REAL criminals were similarly disposed of? YEs.


So - sort out the court and law system before killing any more people.


Why? The system has been fatally flawed, and shows no indicators it is changing. Apathy means the system will not change... which means your argument ignores the REAL problem... or is it okay for an innocent to be sent to prison (where, let's face it - being a criminal would make them BETTER able to survive unmolested), given a life-sentence, maybe?

I don't think this is a 'this first' situation. I think this is a 'let's fix BOTH problems' situation.


Your tone makes it clear that you do not consider criminals to be people. That is where we differ.


I consider criminals to be people, of course I do.

But, this class of VIOLENT criminals have set THEMSELVES outside of society... so I don't consider them valid members OF society.... and thus, they do not deserve the same protections.


I believe to my soul that people deserve a second chance, that even in the case of a "mistake" as massive as a murder or rape, that people can atone for their mistakes. I am not religious, but I do believe that a human personality is a sacred thing.


Spiritualist mumbo-jumbo. If you can't argue it by logic, I'm not interested.

Atonement? I care not for your 'atonement'. A rapist cannot UNrape his victim. He is a predator, and thus, he must be removed.

"Human personality is a sacred thing"? Sounds 'religious' to me... or perhaps you use the word 'sacred' differently?

To me - a human is a human is a human. I will not absolve child-molestation, rape or murder, because the viscious predator ALSO has a sparkling wit.


I hate to repeat myself ... but it is NOT squeamishness. We are not afraid of the sight of blood. We do not oppose the death penalty simply because we are sickened by the thought of people dying. We oppose it because we recognise that people being killed, by a government that claims to protect the people, all of the people, is not justified by any crime under the sun.


"Sickened" - your own choice of words.

Exactly my point.


No. It's made poor by how poor it is.


According to you - and yet all of your oppostion to it has been about how 'icky' it is.


Stop talking about stomach. Who do you think you are going to impress - "I'm a big man, I've got the [fucking] "stomach" to advocate the death penalty. You macho twat.


I'm not trying to 'impress' anyone... it would be a little pointless on an anonymous medium, and most people SEEM to be opposed to my perspective, rather than impressed...

And the vitriol isn't helping your case.... So - chill. Put your pom-poms down.

The fault is indeed in the system that leads to the sentence, as you say. It is a system that relies on humans, and it is a system that will make a mistake. As long as the system is not 100% certain of convicting the right person in all cases, I will oppose the death penalty.

But not imprisonment. Interesting.



I disagree with it being truly irreversible - because, as I said, the inmate has a possibility of being released, but the executed cannot be returned to life.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to anyone who's ever been innocent and died in prison.

Of course, those sentenced to die could always get clemency too.


I see no inconsistency in my arguement. There is always the risk of punishing an innocent person - it is an inherrent flaw in the legal system which must be accepted, else there could be no legal system - but we can reduce the damages a wrongful punishment will cause.


But that's just it. I can also, like you, shrug at a punishment (like imprisonment or execution) and say that hey, there's always a risk of punishing the innocent, and its a risk I can accept.


And the guilty will be punished, as a lifetime in jail is certainly a proportional punishment for even murder.

You see? You want to "reduce the damages" to innocently convicted people... except you yourself admit that a lifetime in jail is nothing to shrug off. I would suggest that a life in prison is "damages" for a wrongfully punished, one that we need to reduce! By opposing imprisonment as a means of punishment, see.

The fact that you don't see how your view is inconsistent really doesn't change that it is. You oppose the death penalty on grounds you could easily oppose imprisonment, but don't; you accept imprisonment on grounds you could easily accept the death penalty as well, but don't.

Yup, so there is a difference of philosophy between us. I'd like to walk out of jail alive after being found innocent 10 years after my conviction, while you seem to prefer to be dead instead of being locked up those 10 years.

Who says you'd walk out alive? That's a big assumption. First, that you could even "walk" after all the assrapings you got. Second that you wouldn't simply rot and die before ever being found innocent. 10 years? How many people sat on death row for 10 years too? How come your mythical 10 years is enough to absolve you, but their 10 years isn't? It's awful convinient, this hypothetical world of yours.

But not imprisonment. Interesting.
Really? You don't understand why I may be opposed to one kind of punishment but accept another?

You don't understand why I might be opposed to capital punishment and corporal punishment, but accept fines and custodial sentencing?


I'm sure that will be a great comfort to anyone who's ever been innocent and died in prison. Irrelevant. They are dead.

Of course, those sentenced to die could always get clemency too.
But it would have to be given before they were executed. Once the punishment is carried out, it would do them no good. The imprisoned man however, whom may also be granted clemency, would also benefit from a clemency given while he was in prison.

Besides, it is an arbitrary measure, and the act itself is not dependent of the guilt or innocence of the convicted person so it's not really relevant.

But that's just it. I can also, like you, shrug at a punishment (like imprisonment or execution) and say that hey, there's always a risk of punishing the innocent, and its a risk I can accept.
Would you rather not accept the risk then?

Unfortunately we must accept the risk of punishing the innocent - to a degree - though we wish to make this risk as little as possible without compromising the efficiency of the system too much.

Consecutively, the damages that follows a wrongful punishment must be reduced to a minimum as well. And as I've said, the consequence of a wrongful execution is that an innocent person is dead, while the consequence of a wrongful imprisonment is that an innocent person has been incarcerated parts of his life.
The imprisoned person may be released back into society if he is found innocent, the executed man may not.


You see? You want to "reduce the damages" to innocently convicted people... except you yourself admit that a lifetime in jail is nothing to shrug off. I would suggest that a life in prison is "damages" for a wrongfully punished, one that we need to reduce! By opposing imprisonment as a means of punishment, see.
But you offer no alternatives. What kind of punishment do you feel would be effective but cause no/less damage to a wrongfully convicted person then?

The fact that you don't see how your view is inconsistent really doesn't change that it is. You oppose the death penalty on grounds you could easily oppose imprisonment, but don't; you accept imprisonment on grounds you could easily accept the death penalty as well, but don't.
If an innocent man is imprisoned, he may be released
If an innocent man is executed, he is dead.
I oppose the latter form of punishment, because the inherent risks of this particular punishment is too high.

I still don't see why you feel my views are inconsistent.

Who says you'd walk out alive? I did, in my hypothetical situation. ;)
That's a big assumption. No, it really isn't. How many people are killed in prison each year? The risk is not that high, even in the US.
(After a quick look at this site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm) I've found that the chance in 1998, when 3.018 inmates died out of a total prison population of 1.244.554, was about 0.24%)
First, that you could even "walk" after all the assrapings you got. Not a part of the punishment, a flaw in the prison system that could be remedied with enough resources. (The number of sexual assaults in prison is lower in Europe then in the US, by the way)
Second that you wouldn't simply rot and die before ever being found innocent. 10 years? How many people sat on death row for 10 years too? How come your mythical 10 years is enough to absolve you, but their 10 years isn't? It's awful convinient, this hypothetical world of yours.
Because was creating a hypothetical situation to present a point. I could have said: "Yup, so there is a difference of philosophy between us. I would rather live with the hope that my innocence would be proven one day and that I would get released, while you would rather die."