Death Sentences etc.

[PanzerKunt]

But if death sentence is murder, isn't life sentence (PERMANT) kidnapping? What purpose does a life sentence convict have except costing a lof of money? And no, if shooting someone is concidered humane in war, shooting someone should definately be concidered a humane method of killing a murderer/rapist.

 

[Vilden]

It doesn't really deserve a counter. I liken it to those slippery slope arguments against gay marriage ("oh well where does it end huh people marrying toasters? Not in my America!"). The risks of hard drugs so greatly outweigh the benefits (if there are any) that people should not be permitted to use them, just like we're not permitted to climb up the sides of buildings or drive around in vehicles that don't meet safety standards. Everything has risks. Obviously. It's inevitable. However most things have some sort of substantial benefit, or are somehow necessary. Sorry, but taking LSD is not beneficial or necessary in any way.

First, LSD is not a hard drug and it can definitly be beneficial to the users. It is recreational and can often lead to good experiances and people often have "revelations" that leads to good decisions to go on with their life etc. For example, I know several people who decided to stop smoking while on LSD and they did it.
It is also one of the least dangerous drugs to your health, fucking weed is worse. The only thing that really is bad about it is if you get a bad trip (which admittedly is not the best experiance you can have that's for sure).

I can see what you mean and agree to a point if you are talking about real hard drugs though.

Edit: lol totally offtopic. :|

 

[PanzerKunt]

The only justifiable killings which occur in war are those done in self-defense. There is no need for self-defense when punishing a criminal, and that is what makes the death penalty inhumane.

Money is not an issue with a life sentence, as it's actually more expensive to put someone to death due to all the legal fees involved.

Then what about defending the other potiential victims? It's not like the convict hasn't done it before. And I'm not talking about how much ending a convicts life costs now, but how little it would cost if they just shot the person through the head. It works in war as I mentioned in the other post. Enough with the fucking political correctness, just get the job done nice and simple.

 

[PanzerKunt]

Well it's obvious that there has to be no doubt that the convict is guilty, but I do believe more innocent people are killed by released murderers than the government. And what kind of life is spending it in a prison for the rest of your years? I guess this is where our views differ. I don't give a crap about revenge as long as they don't do it again and stop polluting my air.

 

[Hubster]

The crime standards in Norway are most definitely fucked up considering a murderer/rapist/whatever should DEFINITELY AND UNALTERABLY get a LIFE sentence. And I don't mean life as in 50-whatever years or some shit...I mean life. Until they DIE.

One could argue though that giving someone a life sentence is the same as capital punishment, as the end result is the same. Which one is more justified, given the end result? Do we judge each type based on the human rights of the convicted being delivered?

 

[Ender Rises]

At least we can keep the motherfucker out of society. and, if we are proven wrong by D.N.A. or some other evidence we can at least try to make up for it.

I'm really drunk.

 

[skeptik]

All of you suggesting permanent life sentences with absolutely no potential whatsoever for release can fuck off with your bullshit, emotivist, victim's rights crusade. Letting your own personal bias affect your judgment when it involves the lives of other people is unnacceptable. The fact of the matter is that the LAST person who should be determining a criminal's sentence is the victim or the victim's family, due to their bias and most likely irrational state.

I've discussed this a number of times before, and before it's even addressed, I'm going to say that I'm fully aware that this will never happen in our society, but it is my view that the prison systems should focus on rehabilitation of criminals first and foremost, and not on punishment. Rehabilitation does not mean imminent release, in any sense of the word. I believe that all inmates should be subjected to a rehabilitary process (excluding prisoners behind bars for crimes that I don't believe merit jail time), and by doing so, this will completely negate the arbitrary sentencing system whereby a judge assigns what comes down to a personally subjective judgment regarding the number of years an inmate should serve. In this process, inmates will be frequently evaluated on their behavior and will not be released until a qualified panel sees that they are fit to return to society and not recommit offenses. In essence, the purpose of this process is to determine that the state of mind of the inmate is altered in which they would no longer believe that it is acceptable to commit crimes, and realize that what they have done is wrong. This process could take anywhere from a couple of months to the rest of their lives. If it so happens that they do recommit, they will most likely be condemning themselves to a permanent life sentence unless it can be determined that the second offense was under justifiably extreme circumstances, whereby they would reenter the rehabilitation process. The vast majority of repeat offenders will likely be behind bars for the rest of their lives because they demonstrated that their evaluations could not be trusted. I would suspect that most murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other violent criminals will never be released, since they tend to commit crimes with a deluded state of mind that can never be repaired.

 

[Hubster]

There is a flaw in this though - rehabilitation is pretty touch 'n' go, anyone who works in a corporate environment will know this. Staff who exhibit bad/counterproductive working/personality traits are usually required to undergo therapy or counselling, and while it does work for some, it doesn't work for that many.

I guess in the workplace, you can afford that error margin, but in the prison system? I don't think so... what other mechanisms could we use, apart from capital punishment, and our current standards of rehabilitation systems, what other options are there?

 

[skeptik]

I'm obviously not talking about 'our current standards of rehabilitation systems.' In fact, I'm thoroughly resigned to the fact that, given our society, my theory would never be possibly put into practice, because it would necessitate an immense overhaul of the entire prison systems, and, well, fuck the entire judicial system, in order for it to be properly effective as it is intended. I am not in a position personally given my range of knowledge to propose specific and explicit measurement by which I intend for the rehabilitary process to assist and evaluate, of course; this would be reserved for qualified individuals who actually head this field and are in a position to propose innovative and effective means of rehabilitation. And as I said earlier, those inmates who do so happen to bypass the system by being released and then recommit will most likely be spending the rest of their lives in jail.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

One could argue though that giving someone a life sentence is the same as capital punishment, as the end result is the same.

Using this logic, the end result of EVERYTHING is the person dying, so...this is a non-point. One is ethical, one is not. It's easy to see why life in jail is much more ethical than just going "OK well you're dead, fuck off."

 

[PanzerKunt]

All of you suggesting permanent life sentences with absolutely no potential whatsoever for release can fuck off with your bullshit, emotivist, victim's rights crusade. Letting your own personal bias affect your judgment when it involves the lives of other people is unnacceptable. The fact of the matter is that the LAST person who should be determining a criminal's sentence is the victim or the victim's family, due to their bias and most likely irrational state.

What a load of bullshit. Ask yourself what's important in life, your friends, family and loved ones or taking care of people who tear these values apart? Living is a right, but when you take that right from someone you lose it yourself imo.

 

[skeptik]

Like I said, emotivist bullshit. Judicial discrimination has nothing to do with the personal (e.g. everything you listed). What's "important in life" doesn't mean shit to what's important in the judicial system. Torturing another human being isn't going to bring your family members back. It's not going to do a fucking thing except commit further wrong, and yet worse, wrong sanctioned by the government.

 

[cookiecutter]

While I agree with you Nec in theory, as you said, it is just not possible at the moment, which is why I think life sentences without parole are currently the way to go for heinous crimes. You prevent any further crimes by that person and you avoid a further murder by not killing them. If they turn out to be innocent, they can be freed, unlike if they were murdered. Sounds win-win to me.

 

[PanzerKunt]

Like I said, emotivist bullshit. Judicial discrimination has nothing to do with the personal (e.g. everything you listed). What's "important in life" doesn't mean shit to what's important in the judicial system. Torturing another human being isn't going to bring your family members back. It's not going to do a fucking thing except commit further wrong, and yet worse, wrong sanctioned by the government.

WHo said anything about torture? It's obvious you are too biased on this subject to keep the discussion on a civil level. Read my previous points. And if the judicial system's purpose is not to work in favour of the people who are ruled by it, what the fuck is it's purpose? Yes, that's where the "what's important in life" part comes in.

 

[skeptik]

WHo said anything about torture? It's obvious you are too biased on this subject to keep the discussion on a civil level. Read my previous points. And if the judicial system's purpose is not to work in favour of the people who are ruled by it, what the fuck is it's purpose? Yes, that's where the "what's important in life" part comes in.

I wasn't only responding to you, asshat.

Not that I know much about criminal rehab, but one would think that if there were an effective way of doing it short of mind control, someone would have thought of it by now. At the very least, a program like the one you suggest would have to demonstrate some small-scale success before being implemented nationwide. And if I had to take a guess, it would be that no one's going to agree on what constitutes adequate standards for release of a criminal, and no one's ever really going to know if a criminal is going to commit another crime.

Rehabilitation has been shown to work for many cases. It is possible. Note that I said possible. I also said that I know that nothing like this will ever happen because people would never accept it. Victims like to assert imaginary rights over their perpetrators too much to allow them the possibility of getting over the mistake that they made in their life. Not everybody that commits a crime is a criminal in the pejorative sense. Some people just fucked up. Some people were just in a bad situation. Some people were justifiably desperate. Damn near anyone could be brought to commit a crime given the right circumstances. That doesn't mean they should have the rest of their lives fucked up because of it.

 

[cookiecutter]

To be fair though, motive is taken into account during sentencing.

 

[skeptik]

That depends on the judge/jury.

 

[cookiecutter]

True, which is why I think rehabilitation would be a good idea could it be put into practice effectively.

 

[AchrisK]

As usual, you have no sources. How do you know, firstly, that places that have punishment to fit the crime have less crime? Where are these places? How do you know that the punishment is the cause of less crime? Can you prove any of this? Saying that punishment SHOULD be a deterrent doesn't make it into a deterrent. It simply isn't. If somebody is going to kill somebody, they probably don't really care about the consequences.

It's just logic that more severe and quickly executed consequences are a deterrant to unacceptable behaviors. Kids who are allowed to do whatever they want without consequences become unruly brats. Kids with guidlines which are enforced are typically more well behaved. Animals can be trained by consequences. People are trained with consequences. If every time you eat ice cream, you vomit, you will likely relegate yourself to a life without ice cream. If you lend friend A money and he never repays, you will stop lending him money, or you will limit it to amounts you know you can live without. I am not claiming that changing everything right now will immedeately deter all criminals. As you said, significant change in this existing society is just about impossible. But the fact is that consequences are deterrants.

 

[Ender Rises]

Sure, that works... except for murder. Nobody who kills another person is going to give a damn about consequences, or if they are it isn't going to stop them.