good thing dodens grav and obscureinfinity are not the justice system, everyone would have bleeding assholes and be dead. assholes
Putting criminals back in society vs holding them in prison for punishment.
- Thread starter mutantllama
- Start date
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
Fifth amendment
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
Death should be the last resort under all circumstances. There are plenty of shitty things that violent criminals could have to go through in prison.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
A person who prevents someone from having rights no longer gets rights. Death is the proper and adequate punishment for the specific crime.
get the fuck over it
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
No, but he can be given his freedom back, his life however - if taken - can never be returned.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
Who are you (or anyone else) to say who does and doesn't get rights?
Let me ask everyone for the death penalty this: Do you prefer the punishment that causes the most amount of harm but still gets the job done? Or do you prefer the punishment that causes the least amount of harm but still gets the job done?
If you chose the former, than there is no point in discussing this any further.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
The problem with that is that there is no possible way to determine whether or not they might do the same thing again.
byrne
Certavi et vici
on these 2 points:
1. im not saying people's risk assessment would change at all. but after a few beers, i make very different decisions to when i haven't had a drink. there are some serious drugs floating about that have faster, more intense and more mind warping effects on people and in smaller doses, than alcohol. widespread easy access to these drugs would, like anything foreign to people, involve a steep learning curve.
2. just like you say my argument doesn't falsify my claims, neither yours, mine. so what are the proposed benefits of legalisation? it certainly isnt a clear cut reduction in crime. there would almost certainly be more innocent people affected by that solution as well. other than giving people a legal right to freely access the drugs, i see no "upside" and even that is touch and go. so i struggle to see the valour in your argument.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
I don't know whether or not you will ever rape somebody. Perhaps I should put you in jail because I don't know.
I'm not saying that it's EASY to ever tell when somebody is properly rehabilitated, and there's no greater guarantee that they will not repeat offenses than there is of any average person on the street committing some kind of violent crime, but if, hypothetically, a murderer or rapist is truly rehabilitated, it makes no sense to continue to have him locked up. Automatic life sentences for murderers and rapists is arbitrary and not always deserved, as evidenced by the fact that murderers and rapists have been released from prison and went on to lead normal, productive lives.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Well one abundantly obvious upside is that it will dramatically reduce the number of inmates in prisons around the country who are serving time only for possession of a small amount of marijuana. People who do drugs =/= people who are criminals. There was a time when people were put in jail for drinking alcohol too. There was a time when people were put in jail for attempting to marry outside of their race. Reducing the number of pointless inmates in prisons not only wastes less tax dollars but allows prisons to better maintain their inmates and perhaps even focus on rehabilitation, rather than merely hoping to prevent riots with an understaffed guard patrol in overcrowded prisons.
Another thing that could be done to reduce the number of inmates is to stop fucking putting people who belong in mental institutions in prison.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
I was expecting this EXACT response.I just think that it puts society in too great of a risk to let someone who is a convicted rapist (as opposed to incarcerating someone that only COULD be a rapist walking the streets) back out into the public. If anything, rehabilitation could be used as a means of somehow reducing how harsh the environment could be for the murderer/rapist. Obviously, a benefit (of some sort) for the murderer/rapist should be offered for his/her attendance of rehabilitation. I just don't think letting them back out into public is the best idea.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
There are people who have raped and murdered walking the streets right now not doing anything. What about Faust, or John Nodtveidt, or Varg? John Nodtveidt has already lived his entire life since he killed himself, and he didn't kill or hurt anybody else. There is no reason to believe that the other two would either. How do you argue with the fact that it has already proven to be a good idea to release some people who have committed violent crimes? The prison system should focus on mindset. If you eliminate the criminal mindset, then there is no more criminal, merely a man who committed a crime. I think that, realistically, a petty thief could warrant greater jail time than a murderer. Nobody should have to be arrested a dozen times. If you have to arrest somebody more than a few times, they should stay in prison because they have a criminal mindset and will continue to commit crimes as soon as they serve their arbitrary sentence. In some aspects, our prison system is far too harsh, and in others, too soft, or rather, naive.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
The fact that you can't see any upside besides what you mentioned is strong evidence that you haven't even read the literature on the legalization topic. If you did, you wouldn't be wondering about this. How hard is it to understand how the black market in drugs causes crime? How hard is to understand how prohibition is connected with that? Do you have any idea how price inflation with respect to drugs - itself a consequence of prohibition - is connected with crime? Have you even considered how prohibition plays a role in exacerbating and perpetuating the conditions that cause crime among those who are most vulnerable, i.e. inner-city inhabitants? Examples could be multiplied. Do you honestly believe that whatever negative effects of legalization there may be would outweigh the benefits of eliminating an entire extremely violent black market and every other social malady dependent on it?
Similar threads
