Alternative to death sentence or life imprisonment?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jverne, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. jverne

    jverne Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before i start i beg not to cherry pick and make up false assumptions and accusations like in the previous thread of mine which mecha locked for no logical reason.

    This issue was brought up many times but i do not believe in this side of the issue.

    Do you have any alternatives (to this two proposed examples, or other), possibly constructive methods.
    I read in a similar thread that forced labor was an option.
    If you think of, why not, returning something back to society isn't that bad really.

    Post your ideas. Picture if you had your country...what would you do in serious crime cases?

    EDIT: If you feel lost, give your ideas for crimes such as:
    -murder
    -rape
    -euthanasia (if it is a crime in your imaginary country, of course)
    -animal killing (same as above)
    -...any crimes that you'd get a high penalty nowadays...
    -...oh yea of course...terorism
    -religious extremism (if it is a crime, same as above)

    Edit#2: if you don't understand something i wrote please ask and don't imagine it.






    And no i'm not planning being a dictator, kill or hurt anyone. I was planning to have this debate on my previous thread before everybody went nuts and started throwing accusations and generalizations.
     
  2. 99.vikram

    99.vikram Tank

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Firstly, no death sentences except for serial killers (with no hope of reintegration into society).

    Terrorism - life imprisonment without parole

    Murder & rape - correctional facilities / institutionalization

    Euthanasia - Not a crime

    Animal killing - compulsory service at some place that takes care of animals.

    Religious extremism - force them to attend workshops on religious moderation (and give extra credits to those who attend "Logic And You").
     
  3. jverne

    jverne Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    (disclaimer-everything i say may or may not be my definite opinion)


    you kept to very similar penalty's as are practiced today.

    Serial killers-if they have no chance of regeneration, i would argue that they are still more useful in some sort of controlled labor than if they would be dead.

    terrorism- could be very similar to serial killing, a similar variation could be used.

    murder & rape-correctional facilities + intensive possibly lifelong communal working

    euthanasia-i would agree that it's not a crime

    un-reasoned animal killing- 60-80% of the penalty for doing it to a human (a line between more important and less important animals should be discussed)

    Religious extremism-agree for most of the part but maybe a bit steeper




    you can post ideas on crimes that you see as a grave crime, not just the mentioned ones.
     
  4. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    no death penalty, no forced labour, no cruel or unusual punishment ...we're supposed to be evolving as a species not reverting to barbarism


    life in prison without chance of parole for the worst offenders
     
  5. <RJMC>

    <RJMC> The Freeman

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    11,049
    Likes Received:
    70
    I say trown them in a jail where they cant see the light
     
  6. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    The death Penalty cant be reserved for just serial killers. What about child rapists who just so happen killed a child?

    Cruel and Unusual punishment only for jack Bauer and CTU to get intel that could prevent the loss of life.

    Whats the prison in Arizona/Texas where the inmates live in tents outside and wear pink?
     
  7. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    you're justifying torture? please explain the difference between government sanctioned torture and brutal dictators like Saddam? Better PR? More effective Spin? Saddam didnt have Foxnews to downplay torture as a means of "keeping America Safe"? ... you're advocating a system that's the very reason you (the US) invaded iraq (or at least after no WMD were found and history was rewritten to spin your justification into a humanitarian one) ..to bring salvation to the people of iraq who were suffering under the brutal torture state run by saddam ..you're (the US) exactly what you (the US) accuse others of being ..except far more insidious because it's cold calculated and has a wider scope than saddam could ever have

    hmmm I wonder how effective humiliation is? Has anyone looked at the rate of ex-cons leaving the pink wearing prison only to re-offend? What purpose does humiliation serve? I mean they rob themselves of their freedom why not compund it and take away their dignity so that one day when they are released they'll have such little self worth that the chances of them flying straight is slim to none

    by all means, put into place policies that create revolving doors ..but then dont complain about high crime rates, just go out and buy more guns, locks, bars on the door/windows
     
  8. Sebastian

    Sebastian Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the death sentence should be served for the following crimes: pre-meditated Murder, rape, child molestation, and pedophiles. These people just cost the system money to put in prison, and when they get out they won't be changed. But circumstances must be taken into account for things like murder, where it may have been done in self defense or out of anger.
     
  9. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    I justify torture when it could save lives, depending on circumstance. Bad guy knows where a little girl is buried alive but wont tell you. What would you do in that situation Stern? Now lets pretend you knew the girl.

    And why are you bringing Saddam into this? When did I even mention a correlation between Iraq and the United states related to prison/torture?

    Only you could suggest forcing murderers and rapists to wear pink is "Cruel" :LOL:

     
  10. Sebastian

    Sebastian Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    0
    so, we're supposed to be coming up with alternatives to the death sentence and life in prison. I say that they use these people for the latest drug experiments and medical procedures. Maybe they could use them as practice for up and coming medical students to operate on. If we put harsh punishments on crimes, then people won't commit them and there will be a lower crime rate.
     
  11. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    "if"s doesnt make for a compelling argument ...what if the person is innocent? "oh well we were trying to save the girl's life, we're sorry suspect A will be forever traumatised ..oh and we regret the death of suspect B ..we didnt try to drown him, honestly!

    because it's an example of the use of torture ..it's the old "we can do it but no one else can" justification




    probably because you didnt make much effort in fully thinking it through ..it could be purple, orange with red spots or plaid for all I care ..the effect is the same

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2552686&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
     
  12. jverne

    jverne Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    why is forced labor wrong? i mean forced labor not as in cleaning the nuclear reactor core or digging roads with your teeth.
     
  13. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    it could be purple, but its not. Are you really concerned with the prisoners being embarrassed?
     
  14. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    there you go with "if"s again ..you have no idea if the person is guilty or not ...that's what interrogations are for. It's disconcerting when seemingly rational people advocate torture but only under strict circumstances when in reality there are no circumstances that prevent torture ...except the law of course ..but who cares about serving justice? it's just a meaningless catchphrase used to justify whatever the hell you want it to justify. While we're at it why not just throw out the bill of rights? "oh we'll just throw out the ones that conflict with our needs"



    embarrassment? I couldnt care less if they set themselves on fire ..that's not the point

    you just dont get it ..you never will so I'll just leave it at that
     
  15. CyberPitz

    CyberPitz Party Escort Bot

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    24,819
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's a pretty tough line to draw. The way the legal system works over here, if it's word vs. word, nothing gets accomplished. Whats to stop someone from kidnapping a person, bringing them in their house, then shooting them under the premise of "He broke into my house, and was going to kill me."

    Wait...that sounds like a solid plan....
     
  16. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    What about the patriot act?

    I told you he was guilty, lets say he admitted doing it. So enough dancing around the question, are you seriously not going to do everything in your power to save their life?


    If you tried logically explaining your reasoning i'll meet you half way.
     
  17. Sebastian

    Sebastian Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's true. Circumstances would dictate the outcome. But if someone murdered or raped another person and there was rock solid evidence proving this fact, then the sentence would be carried out.
     
  18. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    nope sorry I'm not going to answer you hypothetical question because it is completely meaningless ...it's actually detrimental to your argument because you're saying that only under very narrowly defined circumstances ..well how would you determine when it's to be used? on a case by case basis? who will decide?

    using the US as an example the torture your government commits has nothing to do with saving lives ..if that were true they wouldnt have released prisoners who've been tortured

    the use of torture is illegal under your own laws as well as international law ..any allowance of torture only opens the door to further criminality





    the anwsers are already there if you just stopped and listened for a minute

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
     
  19. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    Thats the argument, it should be allowed only under certain circumstances. The fact that you wont answer my question doesn't exactly help your argument. The only way I can counter your claim is by giving a "what if" type situation. Every situation where I would suggest it would be necessary is a "what if."


    Nothing I read prevents what he is doing.
     
  20. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    again you dont get it ..forget it, not worth repeating things ad nauseum




    only because no one has constitutionaly challenged it ...but you still miss the broader implications here
     
  21. 99.vikram

    99.vikram Tank

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,324
    Likes Received:
    1
    The bill of rights only applies to contributing members of society, ie, those that do not kill people for pleasure. If someone shows no remorse, and has no hope of reintegrating with society, what choice is there but to put him someplace where he can "do no possible harm".

    You do understand that under the present system a convict is "tortured" only after he is, you know, convicted?

    Great point :rolleyes:
     
  22. jverne

    jverne Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    well yea, but "what if" just won't cut it. you need a more generalized method in dealing crime situations. like "innocent until proven guilty".


    Stern would you explain why forced labor is wrong?
     
  23. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    Dont rely on someone else to prove your points. Im going to direct my question to you, what would you do in that situation, and lets hear an actual answer.
     
  24. K e r b e r o s

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    My Answers in Red.
     
  25. jverne

    jverne Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    firstly i don't rely on anybody.

    my point was that you cannot accuse somebody and then torture the answers out of him. basically we can argue what is the better, but society nowadays choose the innocent until guilty method of trial. medieval inquisition was the other way around and we all know how that turned out.

    "what if" he really is guilty you say? let's put it this way...(as stern already clearly pointed out)...you amputate the suspect arm in hope he is guilty, after further investigation it turns out that he is not. will his arm grow back? no. but if you use the method i mentioned above such situations are almost impossible.
    + by your method every person on the world would be an amputee because everyone is a suspect.

    is this what you are implying? correct me if i'm worng
     
  26. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    I suppose if everyone kidnapped little girls and buried them alive, then you are right. However, if you took a minute to read my post you would know that I was relying on a specific incident, and I have yet to get an answer.
     
  27. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    why are siberian gulags wrong? why should corporations profit from cheap labor that would otherwise go to lawabiding citizens?

    here read this:

    http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117050


    what suituation? my kidnapped daughter scenario? that isnt a valid question because I would kill you and everyone else here to ensure my daughter is safe ..wrong question to ask a parent

    or do you mean if I was a cop and had a criminal who confessed to a crime but you needed to torture him in order to find out where she is ....hmm what would Det. Stabler do? someone has been watching too much law and order SVU ..again that makes no sense because as a cop I dont write the law ...so if I was a legislator ..well i wouldnt be faced with a situation where my decision had to be made in order to save a life as laws dont become laws instantly

    again your scenario is meaningless because it's just so narrowly defined that it's unrealistic
     
  28. 99.vikram

    99.vikram Tank

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,324
    Likes Received:
    1
    Any person who believes in an anti-social agenda (and cannot be changed) will not benefit society. So we must put him somewhere where he can't do any harm till he dies. Killing him would be retribution, unbecoming of modern society.

    Everything must be considered from the point of view of society. Is this man capable of killing again? If yes, then institutionalization is the only solution. Even if he is a completely rational person, he can be educated on exactly why he shouldn't have killed or raped.

    Institutionalize him if possible. Killing him would be retribution.
    If he was completely level headed during all of his crimes, it's a waste of taxpayers' money to keep him alive - kill him.

    That is an extreme case, which must be treated differently - support groups and such.

    You believe that, I don't. So according to my world view, my solution is still valid.

    Netherlands seems to handle this well. As long as this is supervised well enough, it will work.

    Any offender would obviously be working under close supervision.

    The last one was a joke. :|
    I thought I had made that clear.

    Religious extremism is a state of mind, not an act amounting to crime.
     
  29. jverne

    jverne Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    listen...if you know the child rapist is guilty because he admitted it. Then you are in a way right. But why torture, i'm sure there are other ways to retrieve information. like penalty reduction or something.

    In the "what if" situation you just might be right, but such situations are a minuscule percentage of all crime trials.


    One possible solution could be a variety of self inflicted torture.
    explanation:

    The offender when proven guilty is sent to the prison. There he must work for the "benefits" of better food,a bed, books,... if he doesn't pay the rent he gets stuffed in a small confined solitary cell without food or watter until he decides that is better for him to cooperate. This argument is derived from the assumption that the tax payers are not forced to buy his food or accommodation.

    This is sort of a self inflicted torture.
    And yes i realize i can't patch all the holes in this method in a single paragraph, but you get the picture.


    And no this isn't the only way or my absolute opinion, but more of a thought for argument's sake.
     
  30. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    I used that scenario just to make a point. Torture shouldn't be used to find your lost wallet by any means, but if it saves innocent lives, i have ZERO remorse about it
     
  31. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46

    nope:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights


    like prison?

    ummmm ..no

    I dont know how it is in your neck of the woods but torture is against US and international law ..it doesnt all of the sudden change when a person is convicted of a crime; that's rediculous to even suggest that


    it's not a "point" it's a matter of fact ..I'm tired of endlessly repeating the same crap over and over again just because people cant be bothered to try to understand it
     
  32. Atomic_Piggy

    Atomic_Piggy Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guys, were discussing alternatives to punishments in our ideal world, not wether torture is moral or not. (Which its not)
     
  33. jverne

    jverne Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, i won't argue on your opinion. but technically speaking your method is hanging on a thin rope.



    Oh an Stern read the possible solution to labor for convicts i explained above. Give it a thought. There are no corporations involved here...communal work i believe is the current used term.


    oh yea...piggy is right. This thread is primarily not about what is moral, but what is efficient, sane and socially benefiting. Try to keep morality in an argument at it's bare minimum.
     
  34. K e r b e r o s

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about institutionalizing him? What about the rights of alledged war criminals? Would'nt it also be considered retribution if you kept him in prison until he died? Is'int all justice retribution?

    I guess my example was ploying on its exact opposite -- the all too common escape route of most rational and logical killers who do exactly opposite of moral law and conditioning.

    Should society treat them both the same, or differently, if the crime (murder) appears the same?

    Since were debating your examples yes, and I do appreciate your answers for them.

    How would you feel if in my opinion, depending upon how a person died, life in prison to a death sentence would or might be the only two decisions on the table for someone proven guilty of a crime?

    Or what other options do you think have been exampled and have proven abilities to work?

    But, in your own world view, even after 25 murders, would'nt killing him for 25 instead of one, appear to still be retribution?

    Is it the number of killed, number of charges, or the methods of this mans murder spree that if in your world view, we should consider death?

    We both however dont live in the worlds we should like to -- assuming a Policy change or shift in favor of different methods, would'nt someone likely of 'saving' from a life altering disability or emotional problem be suspectible to this sort of 'mercy killing', even if possible, it were'nt nessecary?

    How would you judge the nessecary and not so nessecary?

    If however an emotionally disabled person insisted -- should we?

    Or, should they're be boundaries, as you implied.

    But these people have the potential to survive let alone provide limited ability for scientific research to help fix or potentially cure these problems in the future, even if its currently limited with what we have now.

    Would killing them, despite the potential to save them, be selfish and perhaps undermine scientific agendas to forward our progress as a society through unwaveringly research for cures through the understanding and growing knowledge of our bodies/physical vessels?

    The system has the potential to still slip -- co-workers reporting on behavior or Police monitoring the potential for a rise in bad behavior might miss a particular step or emotional change.

    Do you think education outside of an environment from this might help to make the criminal better and be much more capable to return them to society? Or, do you believe directly approaching his crime is the right manner?

    Both obviously has they're risks. And I don't nessecarly believe a criminal, can be completely fixed.

    If it was, then cheers. I've enjoyed this debate thus far. Hope to continue it in the future.
     
  35. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46

    when does it save lives? under narrowly defined circumstances? in it's current use do you honestly believe CIA handlers train their interogators in this manner?

    "ok we have a little girl buried up her neck in sand ..the walls are slowly collapsing and if we dont find out where she is we may be too late..

    for the good of god and country we need to find that girl, use any means necessary ..and if that means you have to use force, well may god have mercy on our souls but it's the only decent thing to do ..toughen up men, there's a little girl who will see another christmas if we have any say in it.."

    just utter escapistist nonsense meant to placate the patriotic and easily duped ..the reality is far far more one sided:


    btw REDACTED = censored

    http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/

    it's nice to live in a nice little fairy tale where the good guys wear white and the bad guys eat babies ..however the inevitable appointment with reality can be quite jarring when it finally does come
     
  36. Tyguy

    Tyguy Space Core

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    6
    Thats quite an arbitrary example, especially not knowing any specifics of the case. I could paste pages of facts about 911 but that doesn't quite make a point either.
     
  37. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    no, it's a valid example as it's the only current example of state torture we have
     
  38. PvtRyan

    PvtRyan Party Escort Bot

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. It's protecting society from a maniac. Putting someone away for life isn't about revenge, it's about safeguarding everybody else.
     
  39. K e r b e r o s

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,233
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, whats the difference between Prison and Institutionalization?

    Honest question, really.
     
  40. Jintor

    Jintor Didn't Get Temp-Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    14,783
    Likes Received:
    10
    Soap.
     

Share This Page