Capital punishment - Is it really a punishment?

[Yossarian]

I was watching a film the other day where the 'villain' does horrible and despicable things to his victims. The 'hero' appears on the scene in the nick of time and shoots the 'villain' dead.

It made me think, was the 'villain' really punished?

Reason I say this is that some time ago I went into hospital for a surgical procedure that involved a general anaesthetic. Before the procedure, when the Anaesthesiologist was administering the drug, I recall him talking to me (to divert my attention), ... and then nothing .... until I woke up some hours later in the recovery unit.

It made me think. What if there isn't an 'afterlife'. What if I had not woken up? What if that was it - nothing.

And in terms of punishing the 'villain' - he's shot (from behind), meaning he's in the middle of taking pleasure from inflicting suffering and pain on another ... and then, nothing! His last act was something that was giving him pleasure. That doesn't seem like punishment to me.

So if there is to be capital punishment, then the period between sentencing and actual carrying out of the puishment should be fairly long - so that he/she has time reflect, and fear, what's awaiting him/her. ie A bit like being stuck on train tracks with the sounds of a train heading in your direction and knowing you can't escape.

Alernatively, no capital punishment, but a life long prison sentence where life means life.

Discuss.

(A request in advance: Please lets not turn this into another religious discussion)

 

[niishaa]

I was watching a film the other day where the 'villain' does horrible and despicable things to his victims. The 'hero' appears on the scene in the nick of time and shoots the 'villain' dead.

It made me think, was the 'villain' really punished?

Reason I say this is that some time ago I went into hospital for a surgical procedure that involved a general anaesthetic. Before the procedure, when the Anaesthesiologist was administering the drug, I recall him talking to me (to divert my attention), ... and then nothing .... until I woke up some hours later in the recovery unit.

It made me think. What if there isn't an 'afterlife'. What if I had not woken up? What if that was it - nothing.

And in terms of punishing the 'villain' - he's shot (from behind), meaning he's in the middle of taking pleasure from inflicting suffering and pain on another ... and then, nothing! His last act was something that was giving him pleasure. That doesn't seem like punishment to me.

So if there is to be capital punishment, then the period between sentencing and actual carrying out of the puishment should be fairly long - so that he/she has time reflect, and fear, what's awaiting him/her. ie A bit like being stuck on train tracks with the sounds of a train heading in your direction and knowing you can't escape.

Alernatively, no capital punishment, but a life long prison sentence where life means life.

Discuss.

(A request in advance: Please lets not turn this into another religious discussion)

Neither does sentencing him to prison sound like punishment to me. How about the hero inflicts the same kind of torture to him that the villian was doing to others maybe then he will understand the pain and horror of his victims were going through.IMO Reflecting and the fear of what awaits him is still nothing compared to the actual torture.

 

[shaykh]

I was watching a film the other day where the 'villain' does horrible and despicable things to his victims. The 'hero' appears on the scene in the nick of time and shoots the 'villain' dead.

It made me think, was the 'villain' really punished?

Reason I say this is that some time ago I went into hospital for a surgical procedure that involved a general anaesthetic. Before the procedure, when the Anaesthesiologist was administering the drug, I recall him talking to me (to divert my attention), ... and then nothing .... until I woke up some hours later in the recovery unit.

It made me think. What if there isn't an 'afterlife'. What if I had not woken up? What if that was it - nothing.

And in terms of punishing the 'villain' - he's shot (from behind), meaning he's in the middle of taking pleasure from inflicting suffering and pain on another ... and then, nothing! His last act was something that was giving him pleasure. That doesn't seem like punishment to me.

So if there is to be capital punishment, then the period between sentencing and actual carrying out of the puishment should be fairly long - so that he/she has time reflect, and fear, what's awaiting him/her. ie A bit like being stuck on train tracks with the sounds of a train heading in your direction and knowing you can't escape.

Alernatively, no capital punishment, but a life long prison sentence where life means life.

Discuss.

(A request in advance: Please lets not turn this into another religious discussion)

I agree...death isn't really a punishment for the person committing the crime...guilt, prison, torture...these are punishments...death is painless...death is easy...

 

[Robert]

Eye for an Eye would be the most suitable punishment no?

....leaves the whole world blind, said Gandhi.

The problem with this is that it makes society just as bad as the murderer, and removes the possibility of rehabilitation. Capital punishment was repealed by every Western democracy, except some US States.

 

[Yossarian]

....leaves the whole world blind, said Gandhi.

The problem with this is that it makes society just as bad as the murderer, and removes the possibility of rehabilitation. Capital punishment was repealed by every Western democracy, except some US States.

Don't believe in rehabiltation for crimes that would normally carry the death penalty if capital punishment was allowed. Life imprisonment or a death sentence with a long period in between sentencing and carrying out the sentence. An added benefit of these methods is that it leaves plenty of time for the possibility to remedy any miscarriages of justice.

Capital punishment was repealed by every Western democracy, except some US States

But some of the US States that had repealed it then brought it back.

 

[Swanny]

I think it should depend upon the crime itself.

Jail sentence & rehabilition is for someone who has done small rimes like robbery, fraud, tax evasion etc.
But for henious crimes especially serial murders, rapists, etc who are beyond morality should be straight away taken to the gallows. No point in wasting tax payers money on these people.

 

[Swanny]

IMO There should not be revenge rape. They should just chop it off. Can't rape again.

Lol. No. What is this 2000 AD or BC. Chop peoples hands off for robbery, tongue off for speaking bad or nose off for bringinning family into disrepute?

What makes you think chopping it off really works ? Serial Rape & killing women is mainly done as a show of authority or when there is a abuse by a female relative while growing up which drives you to have cuckoo.

Read about the cases of ted bundy,etc serial rapists & murders they have twisted psychological tendencies & chopping off their members wont be a detterent for these psychopaths. They derived a special kick from the control they had over the helpless. Even when you'd chop it off it wouldnt have stopped them from fulfulling their fantacies.

Also read about what rape is defiened as these days not having a member doesnt disqualify you from commiting rapes.

 

[shaykh]

I think it should depend upon the crime itself.

Jail sentence & rehabilition is for someone who has done small rimes like robbery, fraud, tax evasion etc.
But for henious crimes especially serial murders, rapists, etc who are beyond morality should be straight away taken to the gallows. No point in wasting tax payers money on these people.

His point however which i feel is quite a valid one is whether the death penalty is actually the worst punishment one can deal to a man...

The most heinous crimes get the death penalty but is it an easy punishment?...

I've never been put in such a situation so i don't know...but id prefer a shot in the head to being tortured for instance...also guilt is quite a serious punishment...reflection etc...by taking someones life are they even being punished when they cant even reflect on their punishment?...

 

[shaykh]

Lol. No. What is this 2000 AD or BC. Chop peoples hands off for robbery, tongue off for speaking bad or nose off for bringinning family into disrepute?

What makes you think chopping it off really works ? Serial Rape & killing women is mainly done as a show of authority or when there is a abuse by a female relative while growing up which drives you to have cuckoo.

Read about the cases of ted bundy,etc serial rapists & murders they have twisted psychological tendencies & chopping off their members wont be a detterent for these psychopaths. They derived a special kick from the control they had over the helpless. Even when you'd chop it off it wouldnt have stopped them from fulfulling their fantacies.

Also read about what rape is defiened as these days not having a member doesnt disqualify you from commiting rapes.

A lot more recent than you think...Alan Turing in 1952 chose chemical castration over imprisonment and he wasnt even a rapist...he was a homosexual...

 

[Indiafan]

Neither does sentencing him to prison sound like punishment to me. How about the hero inflicts the same kind of torture to him that the villian was doing to others maybe then he will understand the pain and horror of his victims were going through.IMO Reflecting and the fear of what awaits him is still nothing compared to the actual torture.

This is some really sad thinking. What separates you from the villain then? The villain always justifies his torture giving some reason. In his mind he is convinced he is right. Unlike the movie villains who are all black, real life villains all have good justifications (in their head) for torture. In fact, most of them think exactly like you, that others deserve to be tortured.

Just because something is done for revenge or in the name of justice doesn't make it right. In the end you are committing the same act which he did. Thankfully more and more society and civilization is moving towards understanding crime and criminal, sympathy for all human beings and overall a more civilized humanity.

 

[Indiafan]

I think it should depend upon the crime itself.

Jail sentence & rehabilition is for someone who has done small rimes like robbery, fraud, tax evasion etc.
But for henious crimes especially serial murders, rapists, etc who are beyond morality should be straight away taken to the gallows. No point in wasting tax payers money on these people.

Except in most countries, the cost of execution (including multiple appeals, keeping prisoners in maximum security and the execution itself) is ten times more than cost of life imprisonment.

 

[Robert]

Don't believe in rehabiltation for crimes that would normally carry the death penalty if capital punishment was allowed. Life imprisonment or a death sentence with a long period in between sentencing and carrying out the sentence. An added benefit of these methods is that it leaves plenty of time for the possibility to remedy any miscarriages of justice.

This assumes that justice is based on vengeance. I am glad that the UK stopped taking revenge in 1964, and now attempts to make its criminals into good citizens instead.

 

[Robert]

Don't believe in rehabiltation for crimes that would normally carry the death penalty if capital punishment was allowed. Life imprisonment or a death sentence with a long period in between sentencing and carrying out the sentence. An added benefit of these methods is that it leaves plenty of time for the possibility to remedy any miscarriages of justice.

This assumes that justice is based on vengeance instead of mercy. I am glad that the UK stopped taking revenge in 1964, and now attempts to make its criminals into good citizens instead.

 

[shaykh]

This assumes that justice is based on vengeance instead of mercy. I am glad that the UK stopped taking revenge in 1964, and now attempts to make its criminals into good citizens instead.

The UK cant decide really...the likes of Norway are actually leading the way rehabilitation wise with their prison system clearly being based around rehab...the UK is here and there...

 

[Swanny]

A lot more recent than you think...Alan Turing in 1952 chose chemical castration over imprisonment and he wasnt even a rapist...he was a homosexual...

In which case the britsh pm himself apologised for his unfair tratment & was posthumously cleared of charges.

I dont think it is practised anywhere in the world as it is an inhumane act & yes even criminals hsve rights

 

[shaykh]

In which case the britsh pm himself apologised for his unfair tratment & was posthumously cleared of charges.

I dont think it is practised anywhere in the world as it is an inhumane act & yes even criminals hsve rights

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/north_east/8636891.stm

 

[Crazy_K]

I think permanent death serves as enough punishment.
You have one life to live (depending on your beliefs) and it is the only opportunity to savour what the world has to offer, that's been cut short. Maybe he won't suffer, but we suffering isn't the only form of punishment

 

[Swanny]

Except in most countries, the cost of execution (including multiple appeals, keeping prisoners in maximum security and the execution itself) is ten times more than cost of life imprisonment.

Yeah but just think if criminals were say terrorists. Their followers would have tried everything they could to set them free. A life sentence in this case would have been ridiculous.

These goons would have used the same facilities to preach their fanatics & ordering them to free them from their prisons. Thousands would be failing head over heels to do it.

How much money would the govt have to spend in these cases ?

What about cases like kandhar hijackings ? If the criminals had been hanged, why would the terrorists have comitted such an act ?

What if osama had been captured alive ? Do you think he would have been given a life sentence ?

Take for instance the mumbai 2008 attacks. How much was the govt spending per day so the terrorists had a hearty time ?

I do understand the importance of life imprisonment but in no way should capital punishment be banned.

The capital punishment is the best one there for the hardened criminals who are beyond morality & remorse.

 

[CricketCartoons]

capital punishment is good. except that it should be done in public. so that people get to fear the consequences. bodies should be hung next to coffee shops and restaurants so that people see them while driving by. they will be disgusted, but will also learn to behave.

 

[shaykh]

Without going the religious route...in terms of terrorism...one could argue that execution is a blessing cos it brings martyrdom...death is what they seek...so it really isn't a punishment for some...

 

[Robert]

capital punishment is good. except that it should be done in public. so that people get to fear the consequences. bodies should be hung next to coffee shops and restaurants so that people see them while driving by. they will be disgusted, but will also learn to behave.

They won't learn to behave - they will learn that killing is OK, because the state does it publically.

Most people commit crimes because they do not consider the possible bad outcomes. They have to be taught to think of them. This is where rehabilitation in prison comes in - training them to think ahead, training them to control their emotions, and giving them employment options on release so that they do not automatically return to crime.

 

[Robert]

The UK cant decide really...the likes of Norway are actually leading the way rehabilitation wise with their prison system clearly being based around rehab...the UK is here and there...

I agree that Norway is ahead of us in this regard.

 

[CricketCartoons]

They won't learn to behave - they will learn that killing is OK, because the state does it publically.

Most people commit crimes because they do not consider the possible bad outcomes. They have to be taught to think of them. This is where rehabilitation in prison comes in - training them to think ahead, training them to control their emotions, and giving them employment options on release so that they do not automatically return to crime.

what should the role of punishment be? rehabilitation, retribution, or keeping the society safe? i am in favour of the last two in case of major crimes like rape and murder and first in case of minor crimes and when minors are involved.

 

[Saqs]

what should the role of punishment be? rehabilitation, retribution, or keeping the society safe? i am in favour of the last two in case of major crimes like rape and murder and first in case of minor crimes and when minors are involved.

Punishment first and foremost should be about prevention.

 

[Yossarian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/north_east/8636891.stm

The first few lines from the link posted by [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION]

"A man who tried to murder a 60-year-old woman in an Aberdeen park during an attempt to abduct and rape her two young granddaughters has been jailed.

Ryan Yates admitted stabbing the woman as the girls, aged eight and two, fled.

Yates, 30, carried out the attack last October, days after he was released for an assault with a sexual element.

And yet some seem to think these kinds can be rehabilitated.

What if he had succeeded in his attempts to kill the 60 year old, kidnap the eight and two years olds, rape them and probably also kill them? And then once caught, served a so called 'life' sentence, meaning possibly being out of jail in 10 to 15 years for good behaviour, what then about the feelings of the parents of those eight and two year olds?

All these doo-gooders seem to care more about the criminals than about the victims and/or their bereaved loved ones.

 

[Saqs]

Without going the religious route...in terms of terrorism...one could argue that execution is a blessing cos it brings martyrdom...death is what they seek...so it really isn't a punishment for some...

This is the case for non religious figures as well. Martyrs need not belong to a religion to be considered so. If someone has an idea that people follow or were attracted to and that someone is executed or killed, they will automatically become martyrs.

 

[shaykh]

The first few lines from the link posted by [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION]And yet some seem to think these kinds can be rehabilitated.

What if he had succeeded in his attempts to kill the 60 year old, kidnap the eight and two years olds, rape them and probably also kill them? And then once caught, served a so called 'life' sentence, meaning possibly being out of jail in 10 to 15 years for good behaviour, what then about the feelings of the parents of those eight and two year olds?

All these doo-gooders seem to care more about the criminals than about the victims and/or their bereaved loved ones.

It depends really...

Norway gets slated because it will indeed focus on rehabilitation...and the fact is they have given it a go and they have by far the lowest reoffending rates in Europe...

This of course likely won't satisfy the victim of the crime...but then one needs to decide what they want the system to be...retributive or rehabilitative?...

Do you view Norways system as negative?...im not saying you're wrong if you do...but their low crime rates and low reoffending rates are down to them treating criminals like human beings...and yes even for the most serious crimes...

 

[Markhor]

No government should ever be trusted with the power of life and death. There is little evidence that the death penalty even acts as a deterrent.

The common denominator with all crime-ridden countries is not that they don't have a tough enough justice system, infact many of the Latin American countries do have the death penalty in place and yet crime rates are still huge. The common thread with these places is inequality, broken homes, lack of a stable family unit and poor policing.

In Britain crime rates have actually fallen, and we haven't needed to resort to hand chopping/hanging to do it.

 

[FreeBird]

I was watching a film the other day where the 'villain' does horrible and despicable things to his victims. The 'hero' appears on the scene in the nick of time and shoots the 'villain' dead.

It made me think, was the 'villain' really punished?

Reason I say this is that some time ago I went into hospital for a surgical procedure that involved a general anaesthetic. Before the procedure, when the Anaesthesiologist was administering the drug, I recall him talking to me (to divert my attention), ... and then nothing .... until I woke up some hours later in the recovery unit.

It made me think. What if there isn't an 'afterlife'. What if I had not woken up? What if that was it - nothing.

And in terms of punishing the 'villain' - he's shot (from behind), meaning he's in the middle of taking pleasure from inflicting suffering and pain on another ... and then, nothing! His last act was something that was giving him pleasure. That doesn't seem like punishment to me.

So if there is to be capital punishment, then the period between sentencing and actual carrying out of the puishment should be fairly long - so that he/she has time reflect, and fear, what's awaiting him/her. ie A bit like being stuck on train tracks with the sounds of a train heading in your direction and knowing you can't escape.

Alernatively, no capital punishment, but a life long prison sentence where life means life.

Discuss.

(A request in advance: Please lets not turn this into another religious discussion)

Two important things here.

First, you have not experienced death so you really don't know if the state of death is equivalent to state of sleeping.

You are only assuming it but you really don't know. (Scientist have discovered that when a person dies there is an immediate but very slight reduction in his weight - so perhaps a soul does exis ? And death is different from sleeping as in death, your soul leaves your body - who knows? )

Second, and the most important.
The right of handing over the capital punishment should be with the loved ones of the deceased.

If person A lost his son, brother, daughter, sister etc in a homocide case proven in a court of law then it's up to person A to decide wether he wants to take eye for an eye or spare him or opt for a lighter punishment.

You and I have no right to decide for person A. It's very simple.

And just another note; this guy killed two toddlers in Brooklyn a couple of months ago. The police caught him.

This is what the exhausted mom of the two killed kids had to say,

"And now I will pay taxes for the rest of my life to feed this killer in jail where he will have three hot meals a day, gym, showers, healthcare sports, TV, magazines, etc"

 

[FreeBird]

No government should ever be trusted with the power of life and death. There is little evidence that the death penalty even acts as a deterrent.

The common denominator with all crime-ridden countries is not that they don't have a tough enough justice system, infact many of the Latin American countries do have the death penalty in place and yet crime rates are still huge. The common thread with these places is inequality, broken homes, lack of a stable family unit and poor policing.

In Britain crime rates have actually fallen, and we haven't needed to resort to hand chopping/hanging to do it.

I may be wrong but I guess death penalty may act as a deterent if the exucution of the convicted killer is done in olther open public.

Get this done for a year in a country and watch the dramatic effects.

On the other side,
I think if the convicted killer has enough money to pay the entire expense of his jail life for 20, 30 odd years then perhaps he should be sent go jail.

If not, why should public money and our tax dollars be spent to facilitate killers in jails?

I would rather have my tax dollar spent in reinforcing law n order.

Well trained and higher number of cops in the streets is better than to support killers in jails.

 

[shakil]

Revenge is stupid and for the weak minded. When a crime is committed, its effects are usually irreversible. No matter how the criminal is punished, the after-effects will not go away.

Justice is a fancy word to signal people that the proper measures have been taken. A good justice would, therefore, look to prevent future crimes and may take the avenue of rehabilitation to better understand the reason of the crime and also to prevent false indictments. If a lion eats your friend, you don't go after the lion to seek revenge. Instead, you weep upon yourself for not being more careful.

 

[shaykh]

No government should ever be trusted with the power of life and death. There is little evidence that the death penalty even acts as a deterrent.

The common denominator with all crime-ridden countries is not that they don't have a tough enough justice system, infact many of the Latin American countries do have the death penalty in place and yet crime rates are still huge. The common thread with these places is inequality, broken homes, lack of a stable family unit and poor policing.

In Britain crime rates have actually fallen, and we haven't needed to resort to hand chopping/hanging to do it.

Markhor...deterrence isn't the argument being made...most people favor the death penalty for its retributive nature as opposed to whether it prevents or not...some believe the punishment for certain acts should be loss of life and equate that with justice...

Reoffender rates, crime rates...society in general doesnt trump the victims rights to retribution for some...

 

[shaykh]

I may be wrong but I guess death penalty may act as a deterent if the exucution of the convicted killer is done in olther open public.

Get this done for a year in a country and watch the dramatic effects.

On the other side,
I think if the convicted killer has enough money to pay the entire expense of his jail life for 20, 30 odd years then perhaps he should be sent go jail.

If not, why should public money and our tax dollars be spent to facilitate killers in jails?

I would rather have my tax dollar spent in reinforcing law n order.

Well trained and higher number of cops in the streets is better than to support killers in jails.

No evidence at all that the death penalty reduces crime...

 

[Saqs]

Revenge is stupid and for the weak minded. When a crime is committed, its effects are usually irreversible. No matter how the criminal is punished, the after-effects will not go away.

Justice is a fancy word to signal people that the proper measures have been taken. A good justice would, therefore, look to prevent future crimes and may take the avenue of rehabilitation to better understand the reason of the crime and also to prevent false indictments. If a lion eats your friend, you don't go after the lion to seek revenge. Instead, you weep upon yourself for not being more careful.

If a lion ate my friend, why would I weep about it?

I'd go hunt that lion down so it doesn't eat other people's friends.

 

[Markhor]

I may be wrong but I guess death penalty may act as a deterent if the exucution of the convicted killer is done in olther open public.

Get this done for a year in a country and watch the dramatic effects.

On the other side,
I think if the convicted killer has enough money to pay the entire expense of his jail life for 20, 30 odd years then perhaps he should be sent go jail.

If not, why should public money and our tax dollars be spent to facilitate killers in jails?

I would rather have my tax dollar spent in reinforcing law n order.

Well trained and higher number of cops in the streets is better than to support killers in jails.

The problem is, especially in the developing world, the issue isn't punishment but actually getting the case to court. Rape conviction numbers for example is extremely low. So you could have the death penalty, or chemical castration in place but it won't make a difference if the case never even reaches the courtroom.

Law ENFORCEMENT is the issue, not punishment.

And if we resort to public hangings and floggings, then we're no better than what the likes of ISIL are doing.

 

[FreeBird]

The problem is, especially in the developing world, the issue isn't punishment but actually getting the case to court. Rape conviction numbers for example is extremely low. So you could have the death penalty, or chemical castration in place but it won't make a difference if the case never even reaches the courtroom.

Law ENFORCEMENT is the issue, not punishment.

And if we resort to public hangings and floggings, then we're no better than what the likes of ISIL are doing.

Agreed. Law enforcement may be the issue but you won't have a scenario where there is absolutely no crime.

So lets get back to the actual topic by staying in the real world.

And I guess the concern in OP is,

"Is a long term jail sentence (for a convicted killer) a more severe punishment over the capital punishment?
The OP seems to think that death is an easy way out for killers as he thinks that the state of death is equivalent to state of sleep."

 

[Markhor]

Markhor...deterrence isn't the argument being made...most people favor the death penalty for its retributive nature as opposed to whether it prevents or not...some believe the punishment for certain acts should be loss of life and equate that with justice...

Reoffender rates, crime rates...society in general doesnt trump the victims rights to retribution for some...

Deterrence and retribution are the two main arguments that is used to support the death penalty, that we can agree on, and its fair to say the deterrence argument has been proven to be a myth. Regarding retribution - it depends on what one's view is on the role of a justice system. For me, justice is not merely the meting out of punishment. It must be about preventing future crimes taking place so future possible victims are spared and the criminal learns a lesson. Of course I want to see that person punished - I'm not advocating a soft touch at all. They should work for their privileges.

But let's look at the United States - here we have a system where the focus is squarely on punishment, with life sentences and death penalties regularly handed out. You have prisons that are completely overcrowded with people waiting years on death row or stuck on the appeals process - FAR more costly to the taxpayer and little emphasis on rehabilitation or giving people skills to function in the outside world. This system has resulted in people becoming nothing more than hardened criminals.

Its quite simple, treat people like animals and they'll behave like animals. Look at Venezuelan prisons, described as the fifth circle of hell and we hear of regular prison riots and inmate brutality.

These people will come out of prison more violent and more brutal than before. Now compare it with a rehabilitative system, where we see literacy schemes run, cognitive behavioural therapies offered so a criminal's mental health is looked at and community sentences which are becoming more common so prisoners can earn a wage and be a productive member of society.

This person can then be released, has developed some skills so can gain employment, maybe start a family and those things alone is the "deterrent". They won't reoffend as they actually have something to lose. Compare it to someone who comes out of prison, has no skills as there was no rehabilitation services offered to them in prison, they were subject to torture so they're desensitised to violence and is homeless, unemployed and broke. Is it any surprise that person will be more likely to reoffend ? No, because he HAS nothing to lose ! Why should this person care about the death penalty when he'll commit crime anyway.

If you don't tackle the root societal causes of crime, then nobody should be surprised to see crime rise and not fall.

 

[shaykh]

Deterrence and retribution are the two main arguments that is used to support the death penalty, that we can agree on, and its fair to say the deterrence argument has been proven to be a myth. Regarding retribution - it depends on what one's view is on the role of a justice system. For me, justice is not merely the meting out of punishment. It must be about preventing future crimes taking place so future possible victims are spared and the criminal learns a lesson. Of course I want to see that person punished - I'm not advocating a soft touch at all. They should work for their privileges.

But let's look at the United States - here we have a system where the focus is squarely on punishment, with life sentences and death penalties regularly handed out. You have prisons that are completely overcrowded with people waiting years on death row or stuck on the appeals process - FAR more costly to the taxpayer and little emphasis on rehabilitation or giving people skills to function in the outside world. This system has resulted in people becoming nothing more than hardened criminals.

Its quite simple, treat people like animals and they'll behave like animals. Look at Venezuelan prisons, described as the fifth circle of hell and we hear of regular prison riots and inmate brutality.

These people will come out of prison more violent and more brutal than before. Now compare it with a rehabilitative system, where we see literacy schemes run, cognitive behavioural therapies offered so a criminal's mental health is looked at and community sentences which are becoming more common so prisoners can earn a wage and be a productive member of society.

This person can then be released, has developed some skills so can gain employment, maybe start a family and those things alone is the "deterrent". They won't reoffend as they actually have something to lose. Compare it to someone who comes out of prison, has no skills as there was no rehabilitation services offered to them in prison, they were subject to torture so they're desensitised to violence and is homeless, unemployed and broke. Is it any surprise that person will be more likely to reoffend ? No, because he HAS nothing to lose ! Why should this person care about the death penalty when he'll commit crime anyway.

If you don't tackle the root societal causes of crime, then nobody should be surprised to see crime rise and not fall.

I agree with you...and i'm one who believes the Norwegians to have got it right...they treat criminals like human beings and consequently their crime rates are lower...as are their reoffending rates...

But many hate it...and it is because of that desire for retribution...normally equated with victims justice...truth be told if something bad happened to someone i know then i don't think i would care about the perpetrators need for rehabilitation etc...revenge and retribution is ones natural urge...

I find the Norwegians remarkable tbh for accepting a system built completely on rehabilitation...its easy to believe in it when you're not effected by it...they place the needs of society over their own which isn't an easy thing to do...retribution is bad for society but some can argue its satisfying for the victim...

I like the Norwegian model and believe it to be excellent yet at the same time I understand the desire for retribution...its a natural urge to attack someone who has attacked you or a loved one...

 

[KingKhanWC]

I agree...death isn't really a punishment for the person committing the crime...guilt, prison, torture...these are punishments...death is painless...death is easy...

Plenty of those serving life have no remorse, they live in very good conditions and face no torture.

The death penalty guarantees the same perpetrator cannot ever do the same crime again. Not every country has secure prisons and it's common in places like Iraq where murderers have been freed only to kill more.

Ultimately the safety of society is priority, if that means someone dangerous is guaranteed to be no more by execution then so be it.

 

[Yossarian]

The point of the OP and the thread is to discuss the severest penalty that a justice system should impose for the most serious crimes imaginable, and that have been proved, far above and beyond any reasonable doubt, to have been committed.

In this regard, the purpose of raising the thread was not to discuss the levels of sentences, or the rehabilitation of offenders, for crimes that would be extremely unlkely to carry the death penalty even in a system that allows capital punishment..

So lets just put those types of crimes to one side.

Now coming back to the question of the crimes that would automatically carry the death penalty (if that country's justice system allows), or carry a 'life' sentence, IMO Rehabilitation of those committing these types is neither desirable nor possible.

Would you want a mass murderer to be given a 'life' sentence, and then be let out again even if it's after 20 or 30 years? Would you want a child rapist and murderer to be given 'life', but be let out to roam the streets again after 10 - 15 years because he's behaved well in prison?

Sure, rehabilitate those offenders who don't commit such serious crimes and would never get the death penalty even if the justice system allows capital punishment.

But to even suggest that rehabilitating offenders who have committed the aforementioned extremely serious crimes, and letting them out into society again is good for the society - well that's just ridiculous in the extreme.

In such types of crimes, IMO theoretically there are four potential choices:

1. Death penalty, carried out as soon as possible once all the legal appeals and delays have been resolved.

2. Death penalty - but with a significant period between the passing of the sentence and the sentence being carried out. This will have two benefits,
a) Enough time to ensure, as much as reasonably possible, that there has not been a miscarriage of justice.
b) Time for the convicted to reflect, and fear, the eventual carrying out of the death sentence.

3) Life sentence - where life means life.

4) Life sentence (or a very long sentence that effectively implies a life sentence) - but let out early due to good behaviour and 'rehabilitation'.

I personally would prefer number (2), or failing that, number (3). Under certain circumstances number (1) should be considered, such as in the case of terrorists where, as long as they are alive, someone may attempt to get them released by taking hostages.
Number (4) - never.

 

[Swanny]

Some really idiotic comments on this thread : revenge rape? chopping stull off ? public executions ?

Imagine a family member or freind of your's commits a crime would you like it to be broadcasted all over the 8 o' clock news.
What about the criminals spouse, children, nephews, parents, etc why the feck should they suffer ?

 

[FreeBird]

Imagine a family member or freind of your's commits a crime would you like it to be broadcasted all over the 8 o' clock news.
What about the criminals spouse, children, nephews, parents, etc why the feck should they suffer ?

hmmmm ... This is what a convicted killer should think before he takes an innocent life, no?

 

[FreeBird]

The point of the OP and the thread is to discuss the severest penalty that a justice system should impose for the most serious crimes imaginable, and that have been proved, far above and beyond any reasonable doubt, to have been committed.

In this regard, the purpose of raising the thread was not to discuss the levels of sentences, or the rehabilitation of offenders, for crimes that would be extremely unlkely to carry the death penalty even in a system that allows capital punishment..

So lets just put those types of crimes to one side.

Now coming back to the question of the crimes that would automatically carry the death penalty (if that country's justice system allows), or carry a 'life' sentence, IMO Rehabilitation of those committing these types is neither desirable nor possible.

Would you want a mass murderer to be given a 'life' sentence, and then be let out again even if it's after 20 or 30 years? Would you want a child rapist and murderer to be given 'life', but be let out to roam the streets again after 10 - 15 years because he's behaved well in prison?

Sure, rehabilitate those offenders who don't commit such serious crimes and would never get the death penalty even if the justice system allows capital punishment.

But to even suggest that rehabilitating offenders who have committed the aforementioned extremely serious crimes, and letting them out into society again is good for the society - well that's just ridiculous in the extreme.

In such types of crimes, IMO theoretically there are four potential choices:

1. Death penalty, carried out as soon as possible once all the legal appeals and delays have been resolved.

2. Death penalty - but with a significant period between the passing of the sentence and the sentence being carried out. This will have two benefits,
a) Enough time to ensure, as much as reasonably possible, that there has not been a miscarriage of justice.
b) Time for the convicted to reflect, and fear, the eventual carrying out of the death sentence.

3) Life sentence - where life means life.

4) Life sentence (or a very long sentence that effectively implies a life sentence) - but let out early due to good behaviour and 'rehabilitation'.

I personally would prefer number (2), or failing that, number (3). Under certain circumstances number (1) should be considered, such as in the case of terrorists where, as long as they are alive, someone may attempt to get them released by taking hostages.
Number (4) - never.

You didnt read post 29, did u?

 

[Yossarian]

I find the Norwegians remarkable tbh for accepting a system built completely on rehabilitation...its easy to believe in it when you're not effected by it...they place the needs of society over their own which isn't an easy thing to do...retribution is bad for society but some can argue its satisfying for the victim.....

So do you think the Norwegians should rehabilitate Anders Behring Breivik and let him out again at some point in the future? After he had blown up 8 people in a bomb explosion, and then hunted down like animals and killed, one by one, 69 other people, mostly teenagers?

His sentence is officially 21 years in prison, the maximum penalty allowed in Norway, with the possibility of being let out after serving only 10 years.
Yes, 21 years max. for murdering 77 people in cold blood. Or around 14 weeks prison time (in a comfy prison cell with all the mod cons) for each murder.
Or possibly as little as 10 years in prison, or under 7 weeks prison time for each life taken.

Sure, the Norwegians could keep on extending that if they think he will continue being a danger to society - otherwise he will be let out possibly after just 10 years for killing 77 people? All he needs to do is to 'convince' the authorities that he's become a 'good guy' in order to be let out.

Is that justice? For the families of the dead? Or for those who were being hunted but managed to evade him by hiding until the police arrived. How would they feel if he was walking the streets again after only 10 years?

(For those who are not aware of these killings, they took place on an island in a lake, with no means of escape, that was being used as a youth camp by teenage members of a politcal party. Once the killings started, he even lured his victims out of hiding by posing as a policeman who had come to save them, and then shooting them dead).

 

[Yossarian]

You didnt read post 29, did u?

I did. But you do not appear to have read the OP, or uderstood post #40 that you've just quoted. Try reading them again - and see if can understand them this time.

 

[Swanny]

hmmmm ... This is what a convicted killer should think before he takes an innocent life, no?

Huh ? Criminals cant / dont think these things so is it alright to punish their families ?

 

[Yossarian]

Imagine a family member or freind of your's commits a crime would you like it to be broadcasted all over the 8 o' clock news.
What about the criminals spouse, children, nephews, parents, etc why the feck should they suffer ?

What a stupid comment. Don't tell the world that a crime has been committed? And when caught, don't tell the world as to who is the criminal that committed the crime?

 

[Swanny]

What a stupid comment. Don't tell the world that a crime has been committed? And when caught, don't tell the world as to who is the criminal that committed the crime?

First read what i was replying to. My post was in condemnation to public executions. Who would like to see on national tv their friends / family members be hanged ?

What of young kids watching it ? Wouldnt it scar them for life.

Telling the world the criminal is fine but killing the criminal in front of thousands of young & impressionable minds is idiotic in today's world. No friend or family member deserves to see their loved one being hanged / tortured or shot in front of a media & beamed all over the world.

 

[FreeBird]

I did. But you do not appear to have read the OP, or uderstood post #40 that you've just quoted. Try reading them again - and see if can understand them this time.

You did not explain as to how were you able to conclude that the state of sleeping is just as state of being dead?

This was the starting part of OP (when u were being treated by an anesthesiologist), that triggered post 29.

Please elaborate, how is the state of sleeping is equal to state of being dead?

 

[Saqs]

[MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] and others in this thread - what if it could be proven that certain people are genetically and 'circumstantially' predisposed to committing crime?

 

[Yossarian]

First read what i was replying to. My post was in condemnation to public executions. Who would like to see on national tv their friends / family members be hanged ?

What of young kids watching it ? Wouldnt it scar them for life.

Telling the world the criminal is fine but killing the criminal in front of thousands of young & impressionable minds is idiotic in today's world. No friend or family member deserves to see their loved one being hanged / tortured or shot in front of a media & beamed all over the world.

Not that I agree with public hangings, because I don't, and not for the reasons you've outlined. A killers victim's bodies are often shown on the news, even sometimes strewn around in pieces if the cause was a bomb. The victims friends and family members too see all this splashed on the news. In fact it's even worse if they have to identify their deceased loved ones only via these mangled body parts. As well as going through the trauma over and over again whilst sitting in the courtroom when the trial takes place and the evidence is shown. And then of course there is the media repeating and showing the evidence presented in court.

It's far far worse for the victims families than it is for the killers families. So your reasoning holds no water.

 

[Yossarian]

[MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] and others in this thread - what if it could be proven that certain people are genetically and 'circumstantially' predisposed to committing crime?

In which case, do away with prisons or any form of punishments, for any crimes. After all, if its as you suggest, then everyone could claim it was not their fault, it was genetics.

Incidentally, have you seen "The Purge" ?

 

[Swanny]

Not that I agree with public hangings, because I don't, and not for the reasons you've outlined. A killers victim's bodies are often shown on the news, even sometimes strewn around in pieces if the cause was a bomb. The victims friends and family members too see all this splashed on the news. In fact it's even worse if they have to identify their deceased loved ones only via these mangled body parts. As well as going through the trauma over and over again whilst sitting in the courtroom when the trial takes place and the evidence is shown. And then of course there is the media repeating and showing the evidence presented in court.

It's far far worse for the victims families than it is for the killers families. So your reasoning holds no water.

Most of these news broadcasters blurr the images which are sensetive in nature.

Victim's family deserve the justice but not at the cost of the killer's family. Only the guilty
If publi executions are broadcasted live 24*7 wont

 

[Saqs]

In which case, do away with prisons or any form of punishments, for any crimes. After all, if its as you suggest, then everyone could claim it was not their fault, it was genetics.

Incidentally, have you seen "The Purge" ?

I ask because I am interested in this topic and this field has had some interesting developments over the years.

Its not all cases and it doesn't mean the criminals get let off. It just means that capital punishment is avoided, and sentences are reduced according to the level of predisposition influence that can be medically proven. It implies rehab rather than retribution.

 

[Swanny]

Most of these news broadcasters blurr the images which are sensetive in nature.

Victim's family deserve the justice but not at the cost of the killer's family. Only the guilty
If publi executions are broadcasted live 24*7 wont

Blasted editing policy nghead:

What i want to say is i dont support public executions is becoz it would only hurt the killer's family. After sometime the people would get used to it & it would no longer be a deterrent but like a reality show or something.

 

[shaykh]

[MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] and others in this thread - what if it could be proven that certain people are genetically and 'circumstantially' predisposed to committing crime?

This leaves one with a quandary...either you don't punish anyone because you don't believe it is their fault...

Or you can start punishing anyone even preemptively based on their genetics...so if someones predisposed to commit crime then to protect society you lock them up and keep them locked up...

 

[FreeBird]

The point of the OP and the thread is to discuss the severest penalty that a justice system should impose for the most serious crimes imaginable, and that have been proved, far above and beyond any reasonable doubt, to have been committed.

In this regard, the purpose of raising the thread was not to discuss the levels of sentences, or the rehabilitation of offenders, for crimes that would be extremely unlkely to carry the death penalty even in a system that allows capital punishment..

So lets just put those types of crimes to one side.

Now coming back to the question of the crimes that would automatically carry the death penalty (if that country's justice system allows), or carry a 'life' sentence, IMO Rehabilitation of those committing these types is neither desirable nor possible.

Would you want a mass murderer to be given a 'life' sentence, and then be let out again even if it's after 20 or 30 years? Would you want a child rapist and murderer to be given 'life', but be let out to roam the streets again after 10 - 15 years because he's behaved well in prison?

Sure, rehabilitate those offenders who don't commit such serious crimes and would never get the death penalty even if the justice system allows capital punishment.

But to even suggest that rehabilitating offenders who have committed the aforementioned extremely serious crimes, and letting them out into society again is good for the society - well that's just ridiculous in the extreme.

In such types of crimes, IMO theoretically there are four potential choices:

1. Death penalty, carried out as soon as possible once all the legal appeals and delays have been resolved.

2. Death penalty - but with a significant period between the passing of the sentence and the sentence being carried out. This will have two benefits,
a) Enough time to ensure, as much as reasonably possible, that there has not been a miscarriage of justice.
b) Time for the convicted to reflect, and fear, the eventual carrying out of the death sentence.

3) Life sentence - where life means life.

4) Life sentence (or a very long sentence that effectively implies a life sentence) - but let out early due to good behaviour and 'rehabilitation'.

I personally would prefer number (2), or failing that, number (3). Under certain circumstances number (1) should be considered, such as in the case of terrorists where, as long as they are alive, someone may attempt to get them released by taking hostages.
Number (4) - never.

In reference to your preferred options 2 and 3.

City of New York paid US$ 168,000.00 PER INMATE in the year 2013.

So if a convicted killer is to be sentenced for 10 years (is that significant enough?), you are talking US$ 1,680,000.00

How much of that are you willing to pay in support of point 2 and 3?

Personally, I wouldn't pay a penny. This not what work hard for and pay my taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/n...-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html?_r=0

 

[Yossarian]

You did not explain as to how were you able to conclude that the state of sleeping is just as state of being dead?

This was the starting part of OP (when u were being treated by an anesthesiologist), that triggered post 29.

Please elaborate, how is the state of sleeping is equal to state of being dead?

Check again. Did I say that? No I didn't. Here is the part in the OP you are referring to.

Reason I say this is that some time ago I went into hospital for a surgical procedure that involved a general anaesthetic. Before the procedure, when the Anaesthesiologist was administering the drug, I recall him talking to me (to divert my attention), ... and then nothing .... until I woke up some hours later in the recovery unit.

It made me think. What if there isn't an 'afterlife'. What if I had not woken up? What if that was it - nothing.

In other words, for me, whilst under the anaesthetic, I felt nothing. No memory, no awareness, no pain, no passage of time, nothing.

Now contrast that with 'sleeping'. You dream, you can feel pain, you know you've been asleep when you wake up, you can feel, hear, smell (thats why you wake up if someone shakes you, shouts at you, puts something smelly near your nose ...). See the difference?

I assume you've never been under a general anaesthetic or you wouldn't have posted such rubbish.

 

[Yossarian]

I ask because I am interested in this topic and this field has had some interesting developments over the years.

Its not all cases and it doesn't mean the criminals get let off. It just means that capital punishment is avoided, and sentences are reduced according to the level of predisposition influence that can be medically proven. It implies rehab rather than retribution.

You go down that route of some people not being punished due to being predisposed to committing crimes, then you open the doors to every alleged criminal claiming the same. Eventually it will turn into some smart alec defence lawyer forcing the prosecution into having to prove that the accused doesn't have such a gene, or some other, possibly yet to be discovered gene, as opposed to the other way around.

 

[FreeBird]

Check again. Did I say that? No I didn't. Here is the part in the OP you are referring to.In other words, for me, whilst under the anaesthetic, I felt nothing. No memory, no awareness, no pain, no passage of time, nothing.

Now contrast that with 'sleeping'. You dream, you can feel pain, you know you've been asleep when you wake up, you can feel, hear, smell (thats why you wake up if someone shakes you, shouts at you, puts something smelly near your nose ...). See the difference?

I assume you've never been under a general anaesthetic or you wouldn't have posted such rubbish.

So the argument is based on a "what if" scenario?

In which case you are assuming that state of being unconscious under anesthesia is the same as the state of death?

In dead state, your heart does not beat. So you can't compare both states of body n mind.

You can't equate the state of being under a drug influence as equivalent to state of being dead.

But yes, if u r saying that what if there is nothing - an infinite void - after death, then is a prolonged sentence a more severe and appropriate punishment for a convicted killer rather then capital punishment?

And my argument is,

If we assume that there is nothing after death, even then, who is going to bear the cost of housing the inmate?

Some part of that cost will actually be paid by the victim's loved ones.

This is a red carpet treatment for the killer and sheer punishment and injustice to the victim's family.

 

[Yossarian]

So the argument is based on a "what if" scenario?

In which case you are assuming that state of being unconscious under anesthesia is the same as the state of death?

In dead state, your heart does not beat. So you can't compare both states of body n mind.

You can't equate the state of being under a drug influence as equivalent to state of being dead.

You didn't answer the question about if you've ever been under a general anaesthetic? Based on comments above, I presume not.

But yes, if u r saying that what if there is nothing - an infinite void - after death, then is a prolonged sentence a more severe and appropriate punishment for a convicted killer rather then capital punishment?

And my argument is,

If we assume that there is nothing after death, even then, who is going to bear the cost of housing the inmate?

Some part of that cost will actually be paid by the victim's loved ones.

This is a red carpet treatment for the killer and sheer punishment and injustice to the victim's family.

If it all boils down to money in the manner you suggest, then as soon as the guilty verdict is announced, a lot of money could be saved if the judge, instead of passing sentence verbally, simply takes out a gun and carries out the capital punishmment there and then.

 

[FreeBird]

So the argument is based on a "what if" scenario?

In which case you are assuming that state of being unconscious under anesthesia is the same as the state of death?

In dead state, your heart does not beat. So you can't compare both states of body n mind.

You can't equate the state of being under a drug influence as equivalent to state of being dead.

But yes, if u r saying that what if there is nothing - an infinite void - after death, then is a prolonged sentence a more severe and appropriate punishment for a convicted killer rather then capital punishment?

And my argument is,

If we assume that there is nothing after death, even then, who is going to bear the cost of housing the inmate?

Some part of that cost will actually be paid by the victim's loved ones.

This is a red carpet treatment for the killer and sheer punishment and injustice to the victim's family.

And the other point is;

If God forbids, one of YOUR loved one is killed then surely YOU can choose option 2 or 3. And you should be given the right to do so

BUT

You cannot make a choice for ME if God forbids, one of MY loved one is killed.

So, the victim's loved ones should have the first say between the three options, after the court proceedings have been concluded and the killer is convicted.

1 - Eye for an eye
2 - Spare his life and let him go as a free
3 - Choose options 2 or 3 or whatever length of prison terms the court and the law has established for a convicted killer if not executed.

 

[FreeBird]

You didn't answer the question about if you've ever been under a general anaesthetic? Based on comments above, I presume not.

I have been under anesthesia but I guess you haven't seen the cases of puffer fish poison when administered in a certain dose?

The medical team of American doctors pronounce a person dead. No heart beat - no pulse - no nothing, after several attempts of saving his life.

The dead wakes up in the coffin before being buried. And tells that he was listening to every word of conversation going on between the doctors and his family.

His brain was fully functional but he could not move or make a noise to yell at the top of his lungs "DONT BURRY ME, I AM ALIVE !!!"

Now, you tell me, have you experienced such scenario or u still think being under anesthesia is same being dead?

If it all boils down to money in the manner you suggest, then as soon as the guilty verdict is announced, a lot of money could be saved if the judge, instead of passing sentence verbally, simply takes out a gun and carries out the capital punishmment there and then.

hmm .., apparently you didn't answer my question either,

How much if that $1.8 million are you willing to pay for a convicted killer who has taken the innocent life your loved one ??

 

[Yossarian]

I have been under anesthesia but I guess you haven't seen the cases of puffer fish poison when administered in a certain dose?

The medical team of American doctors pronounce a person dead. No heart beat - no pulse - no nothing, after several attempts of saving his life.

The dead wakes up in the coffin before being buried. And tells that he was listening to every word of conversation going on between the doctors and his family.

His brain was fully functional but he could not move or make a noise to yell at the top of his lungs "DONT BURRY ME, I AM ALIVE !!!"

Now, you tell me, have you experienced such scenario or u still think being under anesthesia is same being dead?



hmm .., apparently you didn't answer my question either,

How much if that $1.8 million are you willing to pay for a convicted killer who has taken the innocent life your loved one ??

I don't know what the dead waking up in coffins have to with to do with capital punishment and the OP. Same goes for eating puffer fish, or taking whatever drugs you're taking, or me having to pay $1.8 million for a convicted killer when I dont have the money or even know the guy.

 

[FreeBird]

I don't know what the dead waking up in coffins have to with to do with capital punishment and the OP. Same goes for eating puffer fish, or taking whatever drugs you're taking, or me having to pay $1.8 million for a convicted killer when I dont have the money or even know the guy.

Hmmm let's put it in simple terms.

Who is going to pay the cost of housing an inmate if we go by option 2 or 3?

 

[Saqs]

This leaves one with a quandary...either you don't punish anyone because you don't believe it is their fault...

Or you can start punishing anyone even preemptively based on their genetics...so if someones predisposed to commit crime then to protect society you lock them up and keep them locked up...

Minority Report style.

 

[sherlock89]

And the other point is;

If God forbids, one of YOUR loved one is killed then surely YOU can choose option 2 or 3. And you should be given the right to do so

BUT

You cannot make a choice for ME if God forbids, one of MY loved one is killed.

So, the victim's loved ones should have the first say between the three options, after the court proceedings have been concluded and the killer is convicted.

1 - Eye for an eye
2 - Spare his life and let him go as a free
3 - Choose options 2 or 3 or whatever length of prison terms the court and the law has established for a convicted killer if not executed.

This law can be misused in India and Pakistan specially due to corruption. Capital punishment is necessary because the more it is given the less people will think of committing these horrific crimes and crime rate will also go down .

 

[niishaa]

This is some really sad thinking. What separates you from the villain then? The villain always justifies his torture giving some reason. In his mind he is convinced he is right. Unlike the movie villains who are all black, real life villains all have good justifications (in their head) for torture. In fact, most of them think exactly like you, that others deserve to be tortured.

Just because something is done for revenge or in the name of justice doesn't make it right. In the end you are committing the same act which he did. Thankfully more and more society and civilization is moving towards understanding crime and criminal, sympathy for all human beings and overall a more civilized humanity.

I know it is wrong and sad thinking. I am not advocating that this become the law of the land. I have seen rehabilitation first hand i have worked for Parole in USA. Majority of our staff were prisoners who were going to be discharged in few months or a years time they did the gardening, cooking, cleaning and other work and got paid for it. i have seen many success stories But I also saw one of those prisoners in the staff take a pen and put in inside my friends eye and blinded her for life. I still don't think eye for eye approach is correct. But feeling remorseful is different than understanding the pain the victim undergoes. if a boy pours acid on her girl's face. even if he goes to jail will he ever understand the agony of what that girl went through.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I know it is wrong and sad thinking. I am not advocating that this become the law of the land. I have seen rehabilitation first hand i have worked for Parole in USA. Majority of our staff were prisoners who were going to be discharged in few months or a years time they did the gardening, cooking, cleaning and other work and got paid for it. i have seen many success stories But I also saw one of those prisoners in the staff take a pen and put in inside my friends eye and blinded her for life. I still don't think eye for eye approach is correct. But feeling remorseful is different than understanding the pain the victim undergoes. if a boy pours acid on her girl's face. even if he goes to jail will he ever understand the agony of what that girl went through.

Something is wrong with the world when they worry more about the human rights of criminals over their victims. Where is the justice? You end a life, and at best you get few years in jail? because the system wants to correct you? if you take someones life, or leave someone with a life handicap, then you deserve the same. to hell with their human rights.

 

[Saqs]

Something is wrong with the world when they worry more about the human rights of criminals over their victims. Where is the justice? You end a life, and at best you get few years in jail? because the system wants to correct you? if you take someones life, or leave someone with a life handicap, then you deserve the same. to hell with their human rights.

Something we can agree on.

 

[Yossarian]

Something is wrong with the world when they worry more about the human rights of criminals over their victims. Where is the justice? You end a life, and at best you get few years in jail? because the system wants to correct you? if you take someones life, or leave someone with a life handicap, then you deserve the same. to hell with their human rights.

Exactly.

 

[Crazy_K]

The first few lines from the link posted by [MENTION=133972]shaykh[/MENTION]And yet some seem to think these kinds can be rehabilitated.

What if he had succeeded in his attempts to kill the 60 year old, kidnap the eight and two years olds, rape them and probably also kill them? And then once caught, served a so called 'life' sentence, meaning possibly being out of jail in 10 to 15 years for good behaviour, what then about the feelings of the parents of those eight and two year olds?

All these doo-gooders seem to care more about the criminals than about the victims and/or their bereaved loved ones.

The person could have psychological/mental issues. Do we just kill them because its easier that way?

 

[Yossarian]

The person could have psychological/mental issues. Do we just kill them because its easier that way?

Oh yeah, lets find excuses for every joe smith who ever commits any crime. Hey, why don't I just go and rob a bank. I shouldn't get prosecuted since I had psychological/mental issues due to the fact that I am stressed out because I haven't paid my bills and I desperately need the money otherwise the bailiffs will reposses my house and make me homeless.
Or simply claim that there is a, yet to be discovered, gene that makes me want to rob banks to get money instead of having to work for iit.

 

[Crazy_K]

Oh yeah, lets find excuses for every joe smith who ever commits any crime. Hey, why don't I just go and rob a bank. I shouldn't get prosecuted since I had psychological/mental issues due to the fact that I am stressed out because I haven't paid my bills and I desperately need the money otherwise the bailiffs will reposses my house and make me homeless.
Or simply claim that there is a, yet to be discovered, gene that makes me want to rob banks to get money instead of having to work for iit.

I'm not making excuses for that person, I'm asking you to think about the possibility.
I saw this documentary on pedophiles the other day, there was a guy who was attracted to kids, he knew how wrong it was, he didn't want to be, but he couldn't help he was attracted to them. He had to put precautions in place to ensure he wasn't around kids. It just made me think, because I used to think pedophiles should be lynched.

 

[Yossarian]

I'm not making excuses for that person, I'm asking you to think about the possibility.
I saw this documentary on pedophiles the other day, there was a guy who was attracted to kids, he knew how wrong it was, he didn't want to be, but he couldn't help he was attracted to them. He had to put precautions in place to ensure he wasn't around kids. It just made me think, because I used to think pedophiles should be lynched.

Not lynched. That's too lenient.
OK, so the guy makes sure he doesn't allow himself to be in a position to commit these crimes against kids. I like expensive sports cars. Should I get brownie points for, whenever I see a parked sports car, resisting the urge to smash the window, get in the car, jump start it and drive it away? And in case I get caught, can I use the excuse that it's not my fault as I have a yet undiscovered gene that makes me want to drive fast cars?

 

[Crazy_K]

Not lynched. That's too lenient.
OK, so the guy makes sure he doesn't allow himself to be in a position to commit these crimes against kids. I like expensive sports cars. Should I get brownie points for, whenever I see a parked sports car, resisting the urge to smash the window, get in the car, jump start it and drive it away? And in case I get caught, can I use the excuse that it's not my fault as I have a yet undiscovered gene that makes me want to drive fast cars?

The point isn't about being rewarded, I'm pointing out there's the psychological aspect which could be involved. Some people need help rather than being disposed of.

 

[Swanny]

@Yossarin, @ Saqs, [MENTION=2099]Cricket[/MENTION] cartoons What absolutely barbaric statements from you guys.
Nothing i repeat Nothing can deny people absolute human rights especially not courts. If you really want to do that there's always vigilantism.

You guys ought to read about forensic psychology. Some criminals may do absolute henious crimes but in the end they do deserve a fair trail as well.

You guys have no idea of how genetics, psychology & environment work in shaping a person & cant begin to understand how a criminal is made by the society.

Human rights are absolute.

 

[Swanny]

Some people here seem to perfect candidates to be a blood thirsty autocrat.
What is this public executions, revenge rape, lynch mobs, dismembering, prejudiced judicial system the perfect defination of a medieval barbaric kingdom.

 

[Yossarian]

@Yossarin, @ Saqs, [MENTION=2099]Cricket[/MENTION] cartoons What absolutely barbaric statements from you guys.
Nothing i repeat Nothing can deny people absolute human rights especially not courts. If you really want to do that there's always vigilantism.

You guys ought to read about forensic psychology. Some criminals may do absolute henious crimes but in the end they do deserve a fair trail as well.

You guys have no idea of how genetics, psychology & environment work in shaping a person & cant begin to understand how a criminal is made by the society.

Human rights are absolute.

If a fair trial then proves guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, then the murderers have lost all their human rights from the minute they killed their victims. You seem to care more about the rights the killers than the rights of those not wanting to be killed in the first place.

As for how genetics, psychology & environment work together, why not go all the way and simply say that, just like a computer and a computer network with millions of connected CPU's, the individuals brain is simply following the pre-programmed code in a piece of software, the human beings actions are simply the results of neurons acting in a similar way to computers and computer networks.

As AI develops, machines containing AI units,to all intents and purposes, will start giving the impression that they can 'learn' and 'think' just the same as human beings - when in fact they will always be a pre-programmed collection of rules and instructions using '0's and '1's.

In that case, with this genetics, psychology & environment work together lark being used as an excuse, the human brain is simply a very advanced piece of AI technology - one that is preprogrammed to follow instructions and sets of rules.
Meaning none of us are responsible for our actions since our brains are electronic components following the laws of physics and mathematics.

 

[shakil]

If a lion ate my friend, why would I weep about it?

I'd go hunt that lion down so it doesn't eat other people's friends.

At least, I don't fancy myself to kill a lion even with a shot gun. Call me a coward, but that is how I am right now