Criminal Justice, Prison and the Death Penalty

[Eredar Warlock]

EDIT BY MOD: Split off from the Gay thread because a productive new thread could be made. So in this thread we talk about what, exactly, is the proper sentencing system, death penalty, rehabilitation, what have you

It's why I think all murders need, you know, not the wimpy rehabilitation BS they go through in prisons. You kill someone? And do it on purpose in the context of murder? You get the needle. Or better yet, the firing squad.

 

[Fig]

Re: The gays

Arcane - that particular vision of justice fail only works in a perfect judicial system, which is never wrong in its verdicts.

So long as the possibility of an innocent man being wrongfully condemned remains, then it is simply morally unacceptable for the state to murder an innocent, and as such the death penalty is unacceptable.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Re: The gays

So long as the possibility of an innocent man being wrongfully condemned remains, then it is simply morally unacceptable for the state to murder an innocent, and as such the death penalty is unacceptable.

At the same time, however, consequences for crimes go down. You get all these programs where criminals are "rehabilitated". Prisons are no longer prisons.

 

[Phoenicks]

Re: The gays

Can we move the Death Penalty debate to another thread? I have a lot I'd like to say on the subject actually. I'd rather not pollute this thread with another topic.

 

[H-con]

My opinion on the matter:

There is one penalty that's the worst. Life in prison. Forever. With no means to get out. This condems you to actually learn from your mistake through a possibly long life instead of just being killed at once. And besides, if later evidence finds the suspect innocent, you haven't necessarily sent him to the grave.
That's what I think anyways. I find death penalty cruel and unnecessary, as there are other ways to penalize a evil murderer. Prison should not just punish, but also try to rehabilitate the person.

 

[Ho-oh]

My opinion on the matter:

There is one penalty that's the worst. Life in prison. Forever. With no means to get out. This condems you to actually learn from your mistake through a possibly long life instead of just being killed at once. And besides, if later evidence finds the suspect innocent, you haven't necessarily sent him to the grave.
That's what I think anyways. I find death penalty cruel and unnecessary, as there are other ways to penalize a evil murderer. Prison should not just punish, but also try to rehabilitate the person.

But if you learn your lesson by being in a cell for the rest of your life... there won't be a way to apply that lesson. No, life in prison is just to keep you locked up because you are a threat that cannot be fixed and so they put you where you can't harm anyone again.

 

[H-con]

That's why it should only be used in the worst cases. Like when you're a cold-blooded serial killer with no sign of remorse (life in prison, that is). Even a murderer deserves another chance, except perhaps in some cases.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

You're ignoring this one simple fact: Diminish consequences for the most serious crimes, you diminish consequences for less serious crimes. You diminish incentive to not commit those crimes. "Rehabilitation" is a load of bullcrap. You should get put in prison and be forced to do hard time. And I mean, hard time, if you commit a serious crime.

 

[Fig]

The circumstances of the crime and the individual should be considered, though.

 

[Ino-Chan]

I'm personally okay with the death penalty. We just gave it to someone for raping and killing two people. First time in 12 years that we did it too.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

The "hungry man stealing bread" argument? He should still pay his society debt. A crime is a crime.

 

[Fig]

Pay his social debt, yes. That's his time in jail, deprived of his freedom.

But if no effort is made toward rehabilitation, then when he is done paying his social debt, he'll just come out of prison with nothing to come back to, skills out of date, and a nasty reputation.

That doesn't serve society in any way, form or shape.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

Let me ask you a question, Arcane Mind: Do you support abortion?

 

[Eredar Warlock]

How is that relevant to the justice system? Comparing abortion to capital punishment isn't even apples and oranges. It's like comparing a watermelon to a baseball. What's one got to do with the other?

The argument you're going to use is that "If you don't support abortion, why do you support the death penalty?" It's a thinly veiled argument, used many, many times before, and I see through it like glass. You cannot compare the two.

 

[Nekusagi]

How is that relevant to the justice system? Comparing abortion to capital punishment isn't even apples and oranges. It's like comparing a watermelon to a baseball. What's one got to do with the other?

The argument you're going to use is that "If you don't support abortion, why do you support the death penalty?" It's a thinly veiled argument, used many, many times before, and I see through it like glass. You cannot compare the two.

Because if you believe that "all life is sacred" or you're against murder (or the taking of a life) being legal, then the death penalty is a contradiction of that.

A criminal life is still a life.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

Sure you can. Taking a life = taking a life, no matter which way you want to look at it. Both are cases where a creature has their life taken from them unwillingly. To look at it any other way is just being hypocritical. And just because you don't want to be seen as having beliefs that are contradictory to each other doesn't mean you can pull the "incomparable" argument.

Edit: Beaten by Nekusagi.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Oooh death penalty~

My 2 cents: Eye for eye when it comes to willingly take another person's right to life. When that happens, the murderer just lost his right to life and should be put to death.

As for abortion, life is sacred, which is why I don't support it because..............the infant DID NOT commit a crime (I.e. Go and kill someone willingly).

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Because if you believe that "all life is sacred" or you're against murder (or the taking of a life) being legal, then the death penalty is a contradiction of that.

A criminal life is still a life.

And justice is justice. "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but capital punishment isn't murder. You're taking it out of context.

The only concession I will make is that before each execution, there should be a very thorough review to make sure the inmate is guilty. If he is, go through with the execution. If not, he goes free. Beyond that, I have no sympathy beyond sorrow that they screwed up their own lives and made the wrong choices.

 

[Every Breaking Wave]

Oooh death penalty~

My 2 cents: Eye for eye when it comes to willingly take another person's right to life. When that happens, the murderer just lost his right to life and should be put to death.

Alright then, here are my questions for you:

1) What about the judge who sentences that criminal to death? If he were a member of a gang who put a hit on a rival member, or an ordinary citizen who hired a hitman, he would be charged with accessory to murder (if not a more severe charge); why does he get off scott-free when he has in effect sanctioned murder himself?

2) What about the person who pulls the lever for the chair/injects the person. They have just taken a life from an unwilling victim. They just willingly took another person's right to life. Should the executioner not have their life taken in return?

3) A soldier is in battle and kills a child soldier in the enemy lines. He has just taken a life. Why is murder acceptable and even rewarded on the battlefield when it is considered the worst crime a person can commit at home?

And justice is justice. "Thou Shalt Not Murder" but capital punishment isn't murder. You're taking it out of context.

I don't buy that at all. Taking a life is murder, no matter whether it is a criminal taking the life of an innocent or an executioner. You can not look at it any other way.

Filled with contradictions. That's all the pro-death arguments have.

 

[Nicoleta01]

Alright then, here are my questions for you:

1) What about the judge who sentences that criminal to death? If he were a member of a gang who put a hit on a rival member, or an ordinary citizen who hired a hitman, he would be charged with accessory to murder (if not a more severe charge); why does he get off scott-free when he has in effect sanctioned murder himself?

If he didn't kill the person with his own hands/with a weapon, he shouldn't get the death penalty automatically, but a stiff and long sentence none-the-less (And throw in some hard labor). If the person did assist the hitman (monetary, weaponry, etc.) both he and the hitman IMO should be put to death.

2) What about the person who pulls the lever for the chair/injects the person. They have just taken a life from an unwilling victim. They just willingly took another person's right to life. Should the executioner not have their life taken in return?

And solider's should be put to death as they willingly take another person's life according to your logic. Seeing how it's a debt to society to end the criminals life, someone has to do it (Authorized and trained to do so).

Filled with contradictions. That's all the pro-death arguments have.

Damn near everything has contradictions, allowing abortion while protecting murderers from facing the chair is a contradiction as well. ;D

EDIT Because Matkins editted post after I began to answer to it, won't change what's above:

3) A soldier is in battle and kills a child soldier in the enemy lines. He has just taken a life. Why is murder acceptable and even rewarded on the battlefield when it is considered the worst crime a person can commit at home?

Either you kill them or they kill you, and in some cases it's self-defense (Which I don't think should have a charge). And going back into human history, usually killing enemy=good and killing fellow peers=bad.