1,000

I stated what kind of prisons we have here - a revolving door system where violent criminals are, more and more, cycled through the system to make room for people who either abuse themselves or enable that behavior in others. In our prisons you can demand certain styles of mattresses, movies, order in from fancy resturants, and get free (read:at taxpayer expense) college education. This is wrong - lots of people on the outside can't get those things, people being punished for doing actual damage to another person shouldn't be able to get them either.

Executing the mentally incompetent and juveniles...case by case basis I guess. Yes, I see something wrong with executing a retarded person who accidently put rat poison in somebody's food 'cause it looked like salt, but no, I don't see a problem with executing a 17.75yo who has a history of beating people into bloody pulp, and forgot to stop this time. Could you please cite for me a few cases in recent history (oh, 5 years or so) where someone has been executed because the didn't have the money to pay for a high-roller attorney?)

Prison is a place we send bad people for two reasons. 1.We send them there to keep them out of mainstream society. 2.We send them there because it is a punishment. Actions have consequenses, evil actions should have bad consequense. Society falls apart otherwise. If you, of your own free will, decide to seperate yourself from society by putting things (and really, that's what most violent crime boils down to) in people without their consent, you should not be able to expect, or receive, societal privileges and rights after your guilt has been determined. If you choose to seperate yourself from society, you shouldn't go back and demand that everyone else treat you with kid gloves. You're either in society or you're out, you can't have it both ways.

Quote:

the world isn't black and white and the people are not separated in good and bad. if someone commits a crime, it might be because he is "bad" indeed or there might be a thousand reasons for his act. this is where the judicial inquiry should act. the problem is that a poor person with no means to hire a top lawyer will end up executed or life sentenced while a rich and powerful person, most of the times, can get away with it.

Did I just hear you say that there's seperation of good and bad? I'd hate to see the society operating under THAT philosophy...

Yes, there should be judicial inquiry to determine the justification of someone's actions - I'm not disputing that. If I shoot someone who's broken down my door at 2 in the morning, I receive different treatment than if I shoot my manager because I've had a bad day and I'm torqued off because he didn't give me a half-hour break. Judicial inquiry has been part of law since, heck, bible times. Nobody, least of all me, is disputing that juries should have the ability to be lenient (which is why I'm an opponent of mandatory minimums). But being sick, poor, or just in foul spirits one day should not be an excuse for larceny, mayhem, and violence.

Adrian

Uhm....way too much noise that makes no real argument for executions. It was said already here...and I'll echo it:

Locking up someone for life to do nothing but think about what they did and otherwise have no life is far more punishment than the relatively short effects of having the specter of death hanging over their head and and instant of pain at most during the execution, if any at all.

Execution is thought of as punishment mostly due to the general fear of death most people have. Yes, they do have everything taken away, but they are also put out of their misery. If you have just witnessed someone murder your loved ones..and you have a choice of chopping their head off with an ax, an instaneous death.......or shooting them in the kneecaps, which would render them immobile while also shattering the bones and embedding them within the leg/knee tissue..never mind the fact the area is pulverized...sending them into unending agony. Which is really more punitive? If you are religious, you might argue they will then go to hell for eternity..well...Hell will still be waiting for them when they die of old age in Prison.

Incarceration for life is also far more civilized when considering that mistakes have been made in bringing charges against the innocent. DNA evidence has proven the innocence of those on death row years after the fact, all due to advances in technology and investigative procedure. It's bad enough they've already lost years of their life, but to take it away completely....and make no mistake, it's happened.

To me, death is more a tool for ascertaining that one never harms another ever again, not as punishment. It's a cop out and it is backwards.

Right, but neither should whether you have money or not at that point set whether you are executed or given a life sentence vs a "time-out" or total dismissal of charges.

Unfortunately, the true criminals don't fear prison. They know they get a dry bunk, three square meals a day, tv, exercize time, and a whole bunch of taxpayer provided perks. It's a vacation for them. The paper in my city just ran a feature on a guy going to prison for life with no parole who laughed during his sentencing and said this was a blessing... Set prison at or below the poverty line and I will have much less problem with leaving them in solitary to think over their crimes and fester. That solves several problems.
1.They're not living better than honest, working citizens at those citizens' expense (which is a crime in itself IMO).
2.They can be released if proven innocent.
3.Prison is really a place of punishment:Bad conditions coupled with time to reflect.

Add to that a reformed legal system that keeps people from being sent away for made-up crimes of self-abuse (among other things), a provision that prisoners have to serve 100% of their terms (if a jury says life, the next time we want to see this guy is in the obituaries, if they say 30 years, we don't want to see him till he has arthritis), and no parole for good behavior, and I'll be the first to call for an end to the death penalty.

Adrian

Because the justice system is not there to stoop to criminals' levels. It's just there to act as it should in accordance to human rights and all that stuff and prison is never going to be a pleasure experience. Otherwise homeless people, for instance, would be queueing to get inside instead of freezing to death in the streets. Just because prisoners are not starved to death or made to sleep on wet floors doesn't mean it equals a hotel.

you'd be surprised the amount of homeless people who purposely do shit with the intention of being locked up for the night if not serve some real time...

i'm sure there are people who prefer prison, because there is food and a place to sleep, but that doesn't mean the conditions in prisons are good. it just means that the society has come to a dangerous point. it also means that the countries can't (or better won't) provide their societies with some - at least - basic means to survive.
so instead of making the conditions in prisons (even) worse, the governments should rise the quality of life of their people. crime's rate will decrease then.
i don't believe there are people who were born to commit crimes or atrocities. i believe that it's mainly the conditions that they were brought up and the conditions they live in to blame.

governments don't just "raise the quality of life" it takes decades of social, economic and cultural growth for quality of life to get significantly better.

if we could do it ourselves we'd all be living in the lap of luxury...

plus you're working on the assumption that higher standard of living reduces crime, although there's evidence, i'm not totally sure it's the only factor in reducing crime overall.

and not wanting to sound like a sociologist but higher standard of living just brings about a different type of crime. instead of mugging people on the street, bank managers, accountants etc... rip peoples accounts off etc....

Referring to the example given, waiting 17 years for your dead man's walk is not relatively short in my eyes. It is absolutely too long.

AFAIK, the "providing their societies with basic means to survive" has been tried before. Russia, China, and a whole host of other countries. The doctrine is called "Communism" or "Socialism" (and a lot of other, prettier things, people tend to take it better if they dress it up a bit) and if I remember correctly, said countries don't have the lowest crime rates around.

It's not government's job to raise the quality of life for everyone - that's OUR job as individuals. Well, at least here in the US should be, I guess I'm assuming too much, that everyone would want to take responsibility for their life. *shrugs*

Nope, people weren't "born" to commit crimes. It also has very little to do with their living conditions (what their parents/guardians teach them is another thing however). It's all about choice. Many extremely poor people make the choice every day not to commit crime. Shifting the blame for a criminal action from the criminal onto the society for not providing cradle-to-grave comfort and security is devaluing personal responsibility into non-existance.

Adrian