The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

martaug: It comes down to the question of what good comes from locking people up for longer. They're not putting a price on human life - life is invaluable - they're locking people away for the amount of time that they deem maximises social gains. And believe it or not, they haven't seen a massive increase in crime since these laws were introduced, nor has the country errupted in complete anarch, with every second person been left blind, as some here have claimed.

[Edit]
Gnarf:

You're putting words in my mouth again. If you don't understand what I am saying, just say so and I will try and elaborate further. Point to any place in the last ten pages where I hae said a crime can have a positive impact.

What I have said is that a PUNISHMENT can, and should always, have a positive net impact.

I don't need to spin it at all - I would go out of my way to keep someone alive when their victim is dead. However, I would have gone out of my way to keep the victim alive as well. The problem is the latter person is already dead, so there is little I can do about that - but there is something I can do about the former. This does NOT mean I value one life over another, so remove that sad little concept out of your mind and at least try and come up with a proper argument. It's either a pathetic way of twisting words to make people who oppose you on this matter seem heartless and evil, or a result from really having little understanding of the issue at hand.

 

Incidentally that's also a question I ask of those that don't support the death penalty. No good comes from incarceration on such a term, so why keep them alive?

Hence the point that only death can answer the worst of crimes. Something invaluable has been taken, then something invaluable must be lost to pay the price.

Which is a fallacy. No good comes of incarceration. It only prevents further bad from occurring. AS long as they breathe, they have the opportunity to offend again.

Again, you are comparing different societies. In some societies, violence is more common, and likely a social norm. In other societies, there is less violence. Laws are independent of this. Comparing New Zealand to New York City does not work because New Yoek City is more crowded and likely more stressful than New Zealand. Hence a higher Crime rate per capita. What seems to work for one nation is not a universal solution, so I'd like to have the option to fry a killer...

This is exactly what I do not believe is possible. In the majority of cases, it is simply one negative following another. I fail to see how these punishments have positive impact, so why not just match the severity to that of crime committed?

That I'm okay with, but as you admit, the victim has been failed.

Which is more than the former did for the latter. The former made a distinct effort to end the life, inflict the ultimate injury to the latter, why then would you seek to stop the ultimate penalty to the former? It still means vigilance above and beyond the negligence that the victim received in protecting the killer. This is not right.

Yet you are showing more vigilance in defence of the killer than in defence of the victim. Actions speak louder than words. In this example, your statement is false.

Wrong on both counts. It is an attempt to expose a flaw in the arguement against capital punishment.

 

Nah, in most cases it's mainly criminals killing each others. And there's no escape, the social stigma of a person who's harmed innocents never leaves them. If they do not redeem themselves through their actions after they get out of prison, they'll have a miserable life indeed, heck, even if they do there's plenty of folks who won't forgive and won't forget. There's no need to kill the criminals, they will be shunned by most, excluded from normal life in the society, unless they prove themselves to be better than they were before and that is a cruel punishment, which does fit the crime.

I admit, when you get into countries and societies with tens of millions more people this doesn't work anymore. I still do not believe in vengeance and I do not hold high the belief that the state has a mandate to control individual bodies and do with them and with the people as the people's leaders or the majority wishes.

 

Thank you - getting down to the core question. To answer your question : because I am NOT the killer. Because I value human life. Just because the killer may not have, does not mean I have to fall to the same level.

I think the biggest flaw in yoru thinking here, is you are viewing the life of the killer and the victim as dependent factors. They are not. They are compeletely independent. By showing support for one's life, does not exclude me from showing support for the other. In this case, one is dead, so showing support for his life would be... well, silly.

Because this is a compeltely destructive cycle - doing damage to society when there is no benefit. It's bloody insane, no other word for it.

And Gnarf, the example given was Finland, not New Zealand
Even if it was New Zealand, it shows that imprisonment CAN work - if it can work in one place, there is no real reason it cannot work everywhere. Humans are surprisingly alike, across the globe.

 

I'm confused. I don't think this answers Gnarff's question at all. Could you provide an example of how a punishment can have a positive impact? To me, the entire concept of a punishment implies that it has some negative impact. Even Finland where you go to prison for 12 years, that's a negative punishment. I don't see how a punishment can be anything but negative.

 

Personally I wouldn't mind if criminals could be brainwashed to be better people. That's basically one result you can get through a life, or 12 years, in prison. In theory at least. One thing that is good to keep in mind is that the clear majority of convicts are first-time offenders who won't do it again, whatever it is that got them convicted in the first place.

Now what would you do with the clear-cut cases of clinically psychotic mass-murderers and serial offenders? Easy solution would be to condemn them to death, but methinks that if they're clinically insane, you should take clinical measures to try to "cure" them. I'd go for neurosurgery, any time anywhere.

 

Probably because our imprisonment system follows the path of rehabilitation instead of retribution. Meaning that we don't use the good ol' eye to and eye line of thinking and therefore we don't see the situation the way you do. In our eyes it's pointless keeping someone in prison who could contribute to the society instead of sitting in jail. Of course there are the dangerous cases that are labeled criminally insane and kept away for life if need be.

 

Rehabilitation is a good goal if it is (or can be) done properly. However, too many criminals con the system (at least here in Canada) and are released again and again to victimize more innocents. On that basis, I have a really difficult time taking rehabilitation seriously. I'm a much bigger fan of retribution and punishment when it comes to the truly disgusting crimes.

 

Certainly. All punishments in their design should be dealt out to gain the most benefit. While the punishment in itself will have solely a negative impact, the results from such a punishment must have a positive social impact. This positive impact could be a number of things : deterrance is probably the major one, with lesser things been community service and the likes.

To give you an example, let's look at speeding. In New Zealand, the current max. speed limit is 100 km/hr. Now, it's a fairly well known fact that you can get away with going just about 110km/hr without getting snapped by the speed cameras. Should people above such a limit, there is the chance of a monetary (or worse) fine. As a result, driving on the major roads most times of the day you will find that the speed cars often travel at is about 110. Should it become very common to get away with doing speeds of 120 without been caught, then I would imagin that the average speed would increase. Likewise, should the speedcameras be set at 100, the speed would fall down to 100 (after a big out cry). So while the result of the punishment is negative (a few hundred dollars and some demerit points on yoru licence), the concequnces following the punishment is that we have less speeding, and hence hopefully safer roads - a positive result which hopefully outweights the small monetary fine occasionally given out.

All forms of punishment have some type of motivation behind it. I would put it down to two catagories - either a positive motivation or a negative one. A positive one would be looking at the concequences following the punishment, weighing up the positive and negative results, and choosing a punishment that would most benefit society. A negative one would be simply punishing for the sake of punishing, having no regards for society and the impact that a punishment may have. I further described these two types a few pages back as protection - inflicting a punishment in order to help yourself and those you can sympathyse with - and revenge - seeking to punish as pay back for damage done to yourself or those you can sympathise with. However, maybe that further destinction is generalising a bit too much, so for now I'll stick with positive and negative motivations.

 

That's why I place the death penalty in the hands of the state.

Then whty must you insist on treatment that is not equal for the murderer? I value human life so much that I believe that, in the majority of cases, the only appropriate penalty for the deliberate murder of an innocent human being is to execute the criminal. He pays a price equal to the damage he has inflicted (namely, the loss of life).

Again, I'm not asking you to kill the killer yourself (I'm quite sure I can find many volunteers, but that's also not right). I'm asking for the right to let the state consider each case and render their judgement based on the facts of the case and the impact involved.

That is not a flaw. Society implies that we have to co-exist somehow. Those that choose to end the existence of another have broken the basic fundamental law of society, and thus refused to co-exist with their victim. Why then ought the rest uf us be forced to co-exist with them? Give the state the right to eliminate them and this is resolved.

It's infinitely less damaging than not punishing the crime at all. You refuse to punish a crime because there is no benefit to punishing them, you send the message that you really don't care for the victim therefore freedom is lost. The destructive cycle was started with the crime. Punishing them is simply the lesser evil...

You've never studied cultural anthropology then. Cultures vary from region to region. The influences of religion vary from region to region as well (Aethiesm, Anti-Theism, Agnosticism or how ever you want to view it is simply a reduction of religious influence). Conditions such as crowding increase the aggression. Affluence may lead to more self centred behaviour. There are so many variables that I can't agree with your claim that what works in one area works for other areas--unless there is one ideology that rules the entire globe and can be readily monitored world wide...

But how would you do this without crossing into cruel or unusual punishment? Images of Clockwork Orange come to mind, and that's worse than anything that is currently in the legal repetoire. Further, what is to saty that the victim (or their family) would not seek revenge?

Sorry, I'd think it better that they be euthanized for the public good. Someone psychologically wired to cause pain or even kill for pleasure or whatever else motivates them are simply too dangerous to keep alive.

But will they contribute after their sentence is over? Isn't there a risk that they will offend again?

Positive of the death penalty: Peace is restored and the situation is final. There is no burning desire for retribution to crrupt an otherwise law abiding citizen. The vicitm's family can get on with the healing process. In the case of a serial rapist, his victims can get on with their lives secure in knowing that the rapist will not target them again.

Positive of Incarceration: I don't see anything that's legal (slavery for example is illegal).

Which for the worst of crimes obviously fails with alarming frequency.

Your example seems to work fine for speeders, and likely other minor crimes, but it fails against more serious crimes, like assault, rape and murder. With more severe crimes, what positive can you hope to accomplish? Rehabilitation only teaches the criminal to say what the penal system wants to hear, and leaves them free to offend again when they get out.

 

Cruel or unusual punishment? Death sentence being the humane one? Worse? Take away the thing that motivates the worst of criminals. It's not life that needs to be taken away. A simple surgical operation would do the trick. How is it worse than killing them outright?

Now someone neurologically wired to cause pain or even kill for pleasure, can be made harmless and yet functional. Sort of. A caricature of a human being without any drives or motivations, yet capable of following simple instructions would be far useful to the society than a corpse of a serial killer. As a deterrent for other criminals? What criminal would want to lose their selves almost completely. Remove their drives. Remove their motivation. For killing. For pretty much anything. Patients who've gone through prefrontal leucotomy operations have not turned into criminals. In fact as horrid as it seems, leucotomy as a treatment for psychosis has even received the Nobel prize for Medicine.

How is it worse than death? Those who would will that the state should kill because of the bloodlust that the killing of their kin has brought forth have no more right to want to kill than the murderer. There is no justification for an act of violence, none whatsoever. It is only the will of the strong, or the will of the majority imposed upon the flesh of the weak. Should the majority and the mores wish that the criminals be thrown to a pit with a pride of hungry lions? Is it only because the state and the majority wishes so that makes it just?

edit: corrected frontal lobe leucotomy into prefrontal leucotomy

 

if you believe what you posted above iku-turso, i feel sorry for you.

 

@martaug: Is it possible for you to be more specific? Believe what? That leucotomy won the Nobel for Medicine? That psychotic patients gone through leucotomy have not turned into criminals? That there's no justification for an act of violence?

 

the fact that it seems you advocate turning people into living zombies. free will & self determination are the greatest gifts humans have & you would take this away. when we commit a crime we should be punished apprpriately but that does NOT include being turned into human worker bees.

 

@martaug: Ah, no need to feel sorry then. Different perspectives on determination, self-determination and free will...of which there has been discussions time and time again, in here and in the field of consciousness studies. Perhaps it might be a good time to start another one in AoLS...

Perhaps it is the cultural differences which lead to different viewpoints. In here, as Morgoroth already brought out, our justice system doesn't go as far as to condemn every criminal insane outright, but it does question whether a person commiting a horrible crime is 'within full understanding' of what he or she has done. This is not necessarily a mitigating factor when considering the sentence, since the person commiting the crime can still be diagnosed as clinically insane and placed into a mental institution. If the criminal is diagnosed as clinically insane and dangerous, it's the asylum for them.

The thing with people who have serious mental issues and/or neurological flaws which might make them dangerous is that they simply do not have free will, not in the sense that you or I might have. The 'might' because it is scientifically questionable whether there is this thing called 'free will' at all.

Whether I believe in free will or not and how much, or should free will be taken away is rather irrelevant however. Since if you're dead you don't have any will at all let alone a free one...

 

Deterrance. I would be willing to bet, if any state stopped holding murders accountable for their crimes, the crime rate would shoot up. If you look at the numbers, I am sure you will find that the level of successfully prosectuted murder cases is directly related to the number of murders.

Non-action in such cases is just as good as action. Me not preventing the state killing someone is akin to me killing the person myself. There is no difference, other than one is a way to ease cowards guilt. Would you kill a murderer, Gnarf?

What one is doing when preventing a murderer been killed IS insisting on equal treatment. The state did not kill anyone. It was the murderer. Two different entities, with, believe it or not, different minds controlling them. As a result, the state should not kill the murderer. It is insisting on equal treatment FROM the state.

You are right, there certainly are many cultures thorughout the world. However, there are some factors that do survive across the culture boundry. One of them, for example, is the sacredness of life. Another, however, is the basic concept that this action leads to this consequence. You do this, this happens to you. That is what deterrance is all about. You look at all religions, as you focused on that in your last paragraph, and you will find similar thought. You do this, you have a good after life. You do that, and you'll have a horrible afterlife.

 

Yes i would without a single reservation, because i see the difference between murder & justice

Obviously we have a different concept of the sanctity of life as i(& others) feel that if you violate this sanctity by murdering someone you forfiet your own. Religion should have nothing to do with it as we are punishing your actions in this life not the afterlife(for those that believe in one)

 

COuld you explain Justice then? I know what murder is, but I think our views of Justice is different. To me, Justice is there to enable a stable state in which society can function.

 

I believe justice is a proportional response to a crime that has been proven by lawful evidence, so that the punishment is fairly imposed and fully deserved. For the worst of crimes this means death.
You seem to think the death of anybody is murder but there are major differences that i(& others on this board) have explained numerous times before.

 

Taking away what maked them human and turning them into mindless zombies is exactly what I mean by cruel and unusual punishment. You call the death penalty horrible, I call what you suggest horrible.

The agency, or freedom to choose for ourselves is the same, it's the psychological malfucntion that makes such crimes an easier or more appealing decision to make. This must NEVER let them off the hook for their crimes. This also does not reduce the impact of what has been done. It is no excuse not to execute them.

In a country where murder is not a common problem like Finland or New Zealand, then maybe lawmakers have time to listen to the bleeding heart liberals that don't want the death penalty. In other countries where there are more murders, they're too busy dealing with the murderers--something that would be much easier if the bleeding heart liberals would go away once they've said their piece...

Then you should be the cell mate of the murderer after he gets his life sentence since you didn't take action to prevent the murder. No wonder you don't like hte death penalty...

If required by my country and given the means to do so, then yes, I would. It is no different than asking a soldier to kill in a time of war.

The murder should receive treatment equat to what he gave his victim. The State, being charged with maintaining order, is responsible for this task.

Look closer and you will see theological differences between faiths. These differences may be subtle or major, but they still have their influence on society as a whole...