NationStates Jolt Archive

A long time ago, I had a debate here with someone. I don't remember what it was about, but at some point the conversation drifted to crime. I suggested community service as a good way to atone for minor offenses, but my opponent wouldn't hear or it, because he thought it would be nothing but slavery with a fancy name, and therefore a very bad thing human-rights-wise.

I could understand him. If you force people to work without paying them, that is a grave offense on their rights. But then, don't all punishments infringe on people's rights in some way? Isn't the whole point of punishment to inconvenience criminals by limiting their freedoms? If you make them pay a fine, you take away their right to decide what they'll do with their own money. If you put them in jail, you take away their right to go wherever they want, and so on.

So, what I'm asking you is: what amount of limiting of human rights do you consider acceptable in the name of criminal punishment? Do you believe that even criminals' rights are always untouchable, or that they willingly waived all of their rights the second they committed a crime? Something in between?

In the poll, choose the punishments that you'd consider so reasonable, that you can think of a crime or two that would fairly deserve being punished in those ways. Let's not worry about minor details like whether your country's judicial system is reasonable enough to be trusted with such power.

If you're feeling talkative, here's a couple of extra questions for you to ponder.
1. Which crimes would incur which punishments?
2. Is your proposed system stricter or gentler than the punishments your country currently uses?
3. Do you have a certain guideline, by which you chose your answers, or did you consider every option individually?
4. I tried to make the list go from the least severe on the top, to the most severe on the bottom. Do you disagree with my chosen order?
5. If you voted for the first option, how would you suggest to deter people from committing crimes?

I'm going to bed now, but I'll be curious and eager to answer to you tomorrow.

I'm not feeling talkative enough for your questions, but I will say that public service is certainly no more an imposition on freedom than jail time is. As well, public service is more personally rewarding and will certainly lead to more thought by the imprisoned on the results of their actions; by experiencing first-hand people who have been victimized.

The only risk I see is with escape, but that's not a problem if the warden is running a tight ship, though abuse by the guards (sweltering temperatures, ignorance to injuries) will be as large a problem as ever.

I have always wanted to see a modern Civilian Conservation Corps at work in our major cities, this would surely have the same effect, while dealing both with our prison population problem and the attached problem with recurring crimes.

Fines for theft and such: pay back what you took and then some.

Community service for "minor" offenses: those unpaid parking tickets, perhaps

Corporal punishment for greater offenses: drunk driving

Capital punishment for the huge stuff: rape, murder, etc.

Give 'em an island and let 'em sort shit out on their own, Snake Plisskin style. It worked for Austrlia.

This was actually interesting.

I am a major pro-human-rights person. Rather, pro-life-activist. Pretty much inclused everything thats alive. Anyway.

Fines for theft and such: pay back what you took and then some. (From above poster) sounds about right.

I also think community service is a good punishment. I do of course agree with your friend, you cannot *force* someone to do it. Make it a choise. Pay the fine or do some flower-watering for 14 days. Or spend the time in jail.

Gets me to the next point. At some point I heard or read or whatever something to the effect of "The primary reason for enjailing a person in the modern society is not to take his freedom, but to keep him safe from the public." (who want revenge, supposedly).

After being involved in a hostage incident some years ago where someone ran amok with a shotgun and allmost ended up killing exwife and daughter, I am well aware of the fact that some people are too dangerous to be among the general public. However I dont think it is right to lock them up in a 2by2meter cell for the rest of their life and just remember to give them food every now and then. There is allways a reason to the behavior, the symptom, and it should be found and treated. Just like you dont put some blind person in the basement and keep it a secret, you try to find out why they are blind, see if you can unblind them, and if you cant you do what you can to make their world/life/reality mix as best as possible with the other people out there.

I am firmly against corporal sentence, it has nothing to do in a modern society. Neither has death penalty.

And before you start flaming me for this, I might add the point that my father died after being attacked by a burglar in his own home.

The way I see it: If I feel saddened by the loss of someone in my family, what on earth could make me want to force that loss uppon an allready grieving family? - I allready know how deep it is felt, and then wanting to do the same, would in my eyes not be as bad, it would be worse.

Death penalty is not as bad as murder, it is worse. I will take this further, and say that any punishment that mirrors the original crime is worse than the original crime. You punish them by causing them the loss you suffered, knowing full well the loss.

Does that make sense?

Also, about the point of forced castration or other surgeries. Thats so... outdated. As mentioned, I believe we should find out what causes the unwanted behaviour, try to mend it, if thats impossible then find a way to let the wrongdoer interact with society in a way that will let the society be safe and the wrongdoer have the largest possible freedom.


Today, with the emerging computer technology, there may be other ways of virtual... I wont use punishment, call it rehabilitation.

I read a book once, where in a wartorn city, rich american "kids" paid some ammount of money, got transported in, and got guns. So they could stand in the window of their luxury hotel and shoot whatever moved down on the street. - what if one day it would be possible to recreate this scenario so they could experience it on the recieving end. Not the recieving end of the bullet that is, thats pretty much *thud* and Game Over. I mean, experiencing seeing someone you love die in your arms, knowing exactly why, coming to realise...it was you.

Well, its not perfect and you cant force it uppon everyone. And it would have to be designed individually.

Like with everything Ive mentioned, this would actually need a post-crime system allmost as big as the actual population to work.

Also, a pre-crime system should be in place, to a larger extent than it is today. I dont believe in scaring people away from doing something bad. I am not afraid to kill someone because of the norwegian 21 year prison sentence, the bad prison food, or fear of the other inmates. Im just not accepting murder as something I am willing to do, because I think that if I say its ok for me to murder someone I would also say its ok for me to be murdered by someone. And Im quite happy with staying alive for a while longer.

However, if someone (unjustly) threathens you, your family, or any other living being for that matter, you should do whatever you can to stop them. I dont mean its ok to blow up a cat with a shotgun for cornering a mouse, or excecuting someone looking too long at your wife. I mean the serious stuff, if someone puts someone in a situation where their life is at stake, you should be able to interfer and do whatever is needed to make the situation change. Ultimately this will include killing someone.


Right, that went on for some time. Please excuse malformed sentences, mote points and bad spelling, its like 4:30 in the morning here and I should be sleeping since ages.

Oh, and as for your last question. It depends on the point of view, but if I think of the punished one, I say that death is close to the top, before any physical punishment. If you kill someone (that is, some fast, "humane" (lol) way... no stoning shit) theyre dead. Gone. Finished. Finitio. The end. Game over. I think any corporal punishment, especially forced surgery, is worse. However, there is allmost allways someone who are close to the "sinner", and you have to remember that allmost any punishment you give to the sinner, you will also be causing grief for multiple innocent parties. And this way it might be right to put capital punishment as the bottom place.