Punishment For Crimes

Comprox · February 2003

After someone sent me this link (*WARNING* - Very disturbing) <a href='http://www.expressen.nu/html/bildarkiv/Saburido.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.expressen.nu/html/bildarkiv/Saburido.htm</a> I got to thinking, what kind of punishment should be leveled for this kind of action. Do you guys believe in the death penalty? Or just life imprisionment?

Personally, life imprinsionment without chance of parole is the biggest form of punishment. No quick end, just a long and boring life stuck in jail with nothing fun to do. Much more effective than a death penatly.

Sirus · February 2003

I don't agree with the death penalty, but if anyone is familar with Bill O'Reilly you might know about his stance. As of now, I believe that they should be sent to Alaska and do hard labor for the rest of their life. I don't agree with putting them in a cell with TV and such. A lifetime of hardwork in a freezing environment is worse than sitting in a cell IMO.

Injury · February 2003

I agree with the death penalty and hard labour. People who commit crimes should feel repentant or be afraid of committing them, otherwise their is no real penalty for being a criminal. I understand that some psychologists say there is no right and wrong and you have to understand the person's perspective in order to understand their feelings and motivations.

A load of crock.

Dubers · February 2003

Criminals who commit serious and violent crimes should be locked up in cells which are similar to the solitary confinement cells prisons have jus now. No interaction with other people, when let out to exercise a bag put over their head so they can't see the outside or other people, no possesions, not tv, no radio jus nothing!

I don't agrre with the death penalty for the simple reason that it's jus an easy way out for these people. They should really have the utter poop kicked out of them but they probably wouldn't learn a thing from that. They should be simply locked up and forgotten about to go insane in the comfort of their own cell.

Marik_Steele · February 2003

I, too, think that life imprisonment is a better punishment than the death penalty -- the problem comes from how the convict is imprisoned. Depending on the country, crime, etc., prison life can either be as harsh as it was meant to be, or a free ride through the rest of life (free room&board, free food, exercise facilities, etc.). It's a problem that applies to non-life-in-prison-worthy crimes as well.

It's pretty pathetic that a felon who commits the "right crime in the right place" may actually have an improvement of lifestyle by getting a guilty verdict.

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

My parents both work in the justice system, and thus, I know a thing or two about serious crime and its punishment.

Most people advocating severe punishments (i.e. death penalty, solitary confinement, etc.) argue that this should serve as repelling example for possible criminals.
Now, if you however take a look at the <i>really</i> serious crime - murder, rape, and anything worse - you'll soon discover that the criminals commiting those horrible acts usually don't come to them as a result of a rational process of thought.
Differently put, they don't calculate their crimes and the possibly resulting benefit against the riscs - the cold stepdaughter looking after the poor old mans heirloms is a myth. Most severe crimes are commited as the result of an impulsive action of some sort, for example extreme rage or a clinically dysfunctional libido.
Thus, the ratio, and by this the prospect of being punished, is in no way important to the criminals. They won't be repelled by severe punishments because, while commiting the crime, they quite probably don't think about it.

Therefore, this argument can in my opinion not be held up.

The two other main motivations out of which hard punishment is advocated are a) the fear of repetition of a crime (like a rapist getting out of prison to go on raping) and b) revenge.

The first argument has indeed something going for itself - there are for example certain kinds of mental dysfunction that can after all we know just not be cured. This is why I support lifelong imprisonment in the most severe cases.

The second argument, and admit it, most of your "don't let them have an easy life" reasoning is based on it, is in my opinion unfit for a civilized society.

First, some have got the impression that being in prison for a longer time can be equalled with a kind of long vacation: You don't have to work, get your food, medical attention, TV, the whole show.
I can tell you that imprisonment is never, under <i>no circumstances</i> something pleasant.
Have you ever spent 23 hours of a day in a small room? And, no, I don't mean 'in a small room in front of the PC', because you're really in the internet in that time, I mean <i>in that small room</i>.
Now imagine spending, say, three years, that is three times three hundred sixty five times twenty three hours, of your life in there.
Believe me, that's hard enough, and we're still talking about the best conditions here. Add even the 'slight' problem of fellow inmates, and you'll soon agree that imprisonment is indeed a punishment.

Second, a more philisophical notion: We consider our society, the Western World, to be civilized.
We have democracies/republics/constitutional monarchies, we have civil rights, cable TV, take your pick. We are even so convinced of the benefical nature of those ideas that we try and spread them in other cultures. This obliges us with the task of making those ideals indeed praiseworthy and desirable.
Now, tell me, is a kind of society that forces its weakest members, and prisoners are by definition the weakest part of a society, into hard work, a life without of comfort, or even an untimely death, indeed true to its ideals and desireable?

Sirus · February 2003

I know that's the environment on deathrow. You have 1 hour out. And I know that many crimes are spur of the moment and impulsive, but i've never come to the point where i couldn't control myself from killing someone. I don't believe that someone who is angry has absolutely no control over their body, saying that, anyone who voluntary commits a murder, not manslaughter or accidental deaths, has done it by choice.

And given, there are plenty of criminals who have done something but would never do it again, but then there are others who will. The problem in the system is that you can't tell if they will and if you knew they wouldn't would that mean they should get a lesser sentence?

Windelkron · February 2003

yipes, that picture at the end was scary D:!

Prisoners shouldn't have entertainment like TV and such. No. THey should have labor.

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

First, I was not talking about deathrow prisoners here - at least in Germany, a usual prisoner, and that includes pickpockets, spends between 22 and 23 hours of his day in the cell.

Second, there is a wide, and I mean <i>wide</i> variety of states of pressure that may lead to violent crimes, and only the most severe of them justify you as 'irresponsible'. Take, for example, the usual 'saturday evening' murder: A spouse living for years under the constant fear / humiliation / violence of the husband / wife, and then decides it's too much.
Do you think that guy / gal calculated the crime?

Calmly laid out murder is rare enough to make it into the evenig news.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And given, there are plenty of criminals who have done something but would never do it again, but then there are others who will. The problem in the system is that you can't tell if they will and if you knew they wouldn't would that mean they should get a lesser sentence? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Technically, one might argue that every human has the potential of commiting severe crimes, so everyone could just as well be locked up on the spot.
Psychology is today advanced enough to determine whether a criminal could repeat his crime or not with a pretty high precision. Again, errors are rare enough to ...
If you know someone is going to repeat a severe crime, you won't let him out. If not, he'll get his second chance.

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

The death penalty is an outdated form of punishment, and is also a cop-out. It is an admitance by society that we cannot deal with you, nor will we try, and it sends innocent men to their deaths. It is not a way to run a justice system, especially the way the US has done it. Up until last year, I believe we were the only civilised nation still executing both minors and the mentally handicapped.

I think that a justice system should focus more on rehabilitation and treatment than simple revenge. But I have no idea how, considering how I'm just some random guy.

RhoadsToNowhere · February 2003

I also don't think that the death penalty is an effective measure -- I believe there is a large portion of the populace that simply isn't afraid of death. Just look at all the cops, firefighters, racecar drivers, extreme athletes, rock climbers, skydivers, etc. Each and every one of those people goes through the risk of not coming back, yet they continue to do what they enjoy regardless. Besides, the death penalty opens a proverbial Pandora's box of philosophical questions such as "Who gave you the right to execute this criminal?" and "What if he actually wasn't guilty?"

Now, to be honest, yes, the death penalty gives a great service to society, which is also something to consider. That rapist on the electric chair isn't going to be molesting any more children after you throw the switch, whereas if you lock him up he does have a chance, albeit very, very small, of escaping and going back on the run.

However, I think the best possible service to society would be to discourage illegal actions before they even happen. Obviously, not every crime can be prevented, but I think the fear of going to prison could stop quite a bit.

And is it just me or does the last paragraph of Nem's last post remind anyone of "Minority Report"? :x

Dezmodium · February 2003

I <b>MIGHT</b> agree with the death penalty if it worked, but it doesn't. If you ever take a look at statistics for crime rates that relate to death penalty and non death penalty sates, and then compare the states crime rates that have the death penalty to what they were before they had the death penalty, and compare those without the death penalty to what their crime rates were like when they did have the death penalty, you will see that capitol punishment only makes a minimal impact IF that. So therefore I would have to agree with Nemisis on the fact that his reasoning have very much bearing and substance.

Now, if you look at california. They have the 3 strikes law. Commit a crime 3 times and get convicted of it, you are going to jail for a while. Now this law has its problems such as a few people who commited a crime twice and then actually sincerely messed up and landed themselves an extended stay in a federal prison but for the most part it has actually worked to an extent. Is it the answer to all of our crime problems? No, but at least there are new laws coming out that don't really screw up the people and help society move forward.

BOZO · February 2003

I don’t believe in the death penalty either. Did you know they still use the gas chamber and the electric chair! Its sick. But what we have to remember life in prison isn't as bad as you might think. The typical prisoner has a TV, radio, gym, pool, along with all the comforts of home an inmate can also hold a job down, raise a family, make money, sex, drugs, alcohol, ect... Some of these guys want to be in prison, its better then there home life! This happens because the prison system has come under fire for not giving inmates necessary "human rights". Like TV is a necessity! Hey I say: "You kill somebody, you have no rights." What I believe is that there should be no death penalty, but prison shouldn’t be comfortable either.

Nemesis_Zero · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RhoadsToNowhere @ Feb 9 2003, 10:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And is it just me or does the last paragraph of Nem's last post remind anyone of "Minority Report"? :x </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Hehe, well, actually, Minority Report dealt with the issue of 'pre-emptitive punishment' via surveilance, but I see what you're getting at.

I don't know about other countries, but in Germany, every felon who has commited a serious crime has the right to insist on a psychological study to determine whether he accepts his guilt for the crime and is willing to try to start anew.
Aside from that, such studies are obligatory near the end of the prison time.

Should the study be 'positive', i.e., should the felon not appear to be endangered of falling back into the old crimes, there are chances of 'loosening' the punishment, for example getting him out after two thirds of the time.
Should the study at the end show no improvements, a court may decide to keep the felon in prison after the time he was sentenced for. This only happens in the most severe cases (such as rape), and the felon always has the right to call for another study by another psychologist.

CallMessiah · February 2003

Hey... finally something I can not fully agree on with Nem, took some time to find a topic...
Okay, I see it this way as hard as the death penalty may sound, it is more like some people pointed out, that living the rest of your life confined to a cell is a much worse thing. If I was ever locked up for life the only thing I would try to do is escape by whatever meens necessary (or should I say possible) as there wouldn't be anything else to do anyway.
I guess death penalty is more human than lifelong imprisonment, but as pointed the question as to who gives us the right to end someoneelse's life arises quite fast. I don't know. In a perfect system, where guilt was easily detectable I would say a person loses his human rights, when he kills someone and can therefore be issued any punishment desired. Then again, there wouldn't be any crimes in a perfect system.
Talking about psychological evaluation, I can only say that I still don't believe that psychology can effectively predict or describe anything or anyone at all. I just don't believe that people can understand the deepest thoughts within another person, no matter how much they analyse that person. The human mind is a twisted one, believe me, I know.

Sirus · February 2003

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that prisoners on death row were the only ones, but i did say i know they spent 23 hours in a cell everyday. Wasn't too sure about other prisoners at the moment.

I agree with Rhoads there, people aren't afraid of death as much, however, thinking that I would spend the rest of my life doing back breaking work might.

greyfox5 · February 2003

I agree of life inprisonment, and hard labor. Just killing them gives them a fast, painless release. They need to serve for thier crime, for the rest of thier life, doing hard work, all day long, till they die. Even if they are 90, i feel they should still work. I think Alaska, or Antartica for a prison. Cold, all day, working. Or work in the desert. That in itself is the death penelty. Just slower, and more painfull. I also believe in corperal public punishment for petty crimes. I wont whip my children, but I agree on whipping an thief, pimps, duggies, and hookers or any other person who does a crim. Murder and rape get the lifetime of heat, or cold, and hard working till they die.

Alabama 100 years ago did that. They announced the persons crime, then the # of whips, or punishment. Then they continued to flog the wanker, then throw salt water on thier back. After that they were released. Crime dropped to an all time low back then, and there were rare cases of repeat offenders.

CallMessiah · February 2003

Yes... and if we skin everyone alive and let them bath in salt, I bet crime rates would drop to zero.

Seriously though, I can't make up my mind right now if what Greyfox said is a good idea or just inhuman. Guess I'll be back with an answer in sometime... or... well, let's see what other people think.

Venmoch · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (greyfox555 @ Feb 11 2003, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Alabama 100 years ago did that. They announced the persons crime, then the # of whips, or punishment. Then they continued to flog the wanker, then throw salt water on thier back. After that they were released. Crime dropped to an all time low back then, and there were rare cases of repeat offenders.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
You know the also did that aboard Royal Navy ships in about Nelsons era. The difference was that is was a Cat 'o Nine Tails (Whip with nine whippy bits with a small hard thing inside) Which you made yourself, were then flogged with. (Stripping the flesh off your back) and then you were given salt that was rubbed into it. (It was the cheapest and most available antiseptic!)

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (greyfox555 @ Feb 11 2003, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I agree of life inprisonment, and hard labor. Just killing them gives them a fast, painless release. They need to serve for thier crime, for the rest of thier life, doing hard work, all day long, till they die. Even if they are 90, i feel they should still work. I think Alaska, or Antartica for a prison. Cold, all day, working. Or work in the desert. That in itself is the death penelty. Just slower, and more painfull. I also believe in corperal public punishment for petty crimes. I wont whip my children, but I agree on whipping an thief, pimps, duggies, and hookers or any other person who does a crim. Murder and rape get the lifetime of heat, or cold, and hard working till they die. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
That solves nothing.
1)Why should the punishment be worse than teh crime? If killers and other violent offenders get the "living hell treatment", then it takes only a small step to give non-violent offenders penalties that are worse than their crimes(ex: death). If we started treating the killers like sub-humans, then we may just as well begin to treat the political prisoners, or minors.
2)How many countries do we look don on for doing just that?

A killer may be a killer, but he's still a human. I don't know what hapened to you to make you become so cold as to regard criminals as less-than-humans, who are to be beaten upon as the state sees fit, but I'm sorry for it, and hopefully you won't be influencing legislation any time soon. It is my personal belief that personal feeling should not mix into the law, and there are more than a few groups who get me worked up because of it(ex: MADD)

Cyborgguineapig · February 2003

Just a quick fact:

The last time the guillotine was used in the U.S. as a death sentence tool was the year of 1977. Amazing huh.

greyfox5 · February 2003

Why do I think they are subhumans? Well, a few points. Man was givin hands and the ingunuity to work with the land, to cultivate it, to learn, and to make things better for mankind. These people kill humans. Why must we kill our own kind? Im not an avid supporter of war, but If the person who killing of humans plans or is planning to kill even more, mankind should take his **** down in protection of itself. All organsisms have ONE thing set into thier mind, and the only thing common in all living things on Earth. To preserve itself and its race. Killing its own, is horrible. The second point is one of my friends was gunned down by some pimps, because she would not get into thier cars and give them sex. Thats why. People like that are a disgrace, and so are murderers, to mankind.

Sancho · February 2003

I find the human concept of revenge interesting...

If you wish something so horrible and cruel to happen to another human being, doesn't that make you just as bad as any other psychotic killer that likes to torture their victims? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'> Think about it.

I was watching the live execution thing of Timothy McVay (sp?), and it showed a relative of one of the victims saying that she wanted him to suffer and die a painful, horrible death. Kind of messed me up.

Personally, I think laws should be based on prevention. If there is a chance that Ted Bundy will try to kill someone again, then hang him high.

I know I would probably be really **** if someone killed a close friend, and I would probably want him to suffer and die. I just find it...interesting that humans can be that way. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'>

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (greyfox555 @ Feb 12 2003, 11:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Why do I think they are subhumans? Well, a few points. Man was givin hands and the ingunuity to work with the land, to cultivate it, to learn, and to make things better for mankind. These people kill humans. Why must we kill our own kind? Im not an avid supporter of war, but If the person who killing of humans plans or is planning to kill even more, mankind should take his **** down in protection of itself. All organsisms have ONE thing set into thier mind, and the only thing common in all living things on Earth. To preserve itself and its race. Killing its own, is horrible. The second point is one of my friends was gunned down by some pimps, because she would not get into thier cars and give them sex. Thats why. People like that are a disgrace, and so are murderers, to mankind.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
1)Do you think we are the only animals that kill our own kind for personall gain?
2)I usually make it a point never to make Holocaust comparisons, but this has Third Reich written all over it.
3)If you are given sway, you will, in your blind hatred, doom more than a few innocent men to a fate designed to be worse than death. If this happens, you will be, by your own logic, worse than any murderer. There is a difference between finding murderers dispicable and being a vengefull hypocrit.

greyfox5 · February 2003

"There is a difference between finding murderers dispicable and being a vengefull hypocrit. "

Yeah so? I will never see my friend again in my life. We were best friends since we were 6. If I ever see those ****, I will personally kill them with a silenced .22 Berreta to the back of the skull. I dont care what you say. They did horrable things to her. Not only did they kill her, they raped her before they did...I feel sick now...

I still believe in public floggings, it will do no permanent damage to thier body, in the mind yes. They will think twice before doing it again. "If I get caught again...im going to be whipped in front of people who will yell at me, curse me, and yell insults. I dont want to go through that again"

AllUrHiveRblong2us · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (greyfox555 @ Feb 12 2003, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yeah so? I will never see my friend again in my life. We were best friends since we were 6. If I ever see those ****, I will personally kill them with a silenced .22 Berreta to the back of the skull. I dont care what you say. They did horrable things to her. Not only did they kill her, they raped her before they did...I feel sick now...  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Violence does not solve or make up for other violence. It is that simple.

I pity you, I really do.

ThePhilips · February 2003

Dude the world is full with crazy people who kill people why should we miss them? Kill them all I say, I dont care cuase I will not be effect by it, I'm not crazy enough to go kill an entire familiy while they sleep in their own house. And people like that get out after 20 years what-the-hell?! Those people should have thier arms and legs cutted off make them try to understand you just destroyed 5 peoples lifes and you wont get away with it after 20years.

Relic25 · February 2003

I find this thread interesting, not for it's subject, but for everyone's response to it. Nearly everyone is making arguments involving either the 'death penalty as a deterrent' slant, or out of purely moral stance, neither of which will sway those in opposition.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about the death penalty not being an effective deterrent, and it is possible to cite endless reams of statistics to back that point. However, the cold facts are that: A. a person who is convicted and executed has exactly a zero percent chance of ever again committing the crime for which he/she was convicted, and B. although media attention may distort the big picture through portrayals of a tiny handful of cases, the fact remains that overall, the incidence of wrongly convicted death row inmates is very, very low.

No matter what side of the argument you may lie, you cannot ever win a debate using morality as your basis. Try examining the whole issue again with your 'moral switch' turned off and see what happens. Most realists will agree that the earth and mankind in general would greatly benefit from the shedding of about two to three hundred billion pounds of excess human baggage. It is not unreasonable to consider starting with those who are either incapable of not being detrimental to others, or those who have consciously decided to be detrimental to others. In the end, it matters very little whether or not it is 'right' or 'wrong' to do so.

Just a little two-penny philosophy to ponder.

CallMessiah · February 2003

That is actually so very true that you can neither deny it nor prove it to be false unless you argue with said morality in mind. So, yes, what Relic25 said is true... but... (you knew this would come, right?)
If we were to argue every point without morality and without a little bit of humanity we wouldn't be much more than machines because solutions would be based on logic alone.
If I would look at everything without morals and judge by logic alone, I would have to go outside within the next twenty minutes and shoot up half the town because most people out there fall under the category of human baggage... well the best solution might be just to shoot myself, as I may be part of said baggage as well.
(This actually brings me to a conclusion that would fit better with the discussion in "Are you afraid of death?": What if those psychopath who run around killing people and shoot themselves afterwards are actually right? Sorry for bringing this up... just... I don't know...)
All I wanted to say is that many things would be easier if we could simply argue on logic alone, but that is what makes us human, that we can't.

moultano · February 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Relic25 @ Feb 13 2003, 10:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> B. although media attention may distort the big picture through portrayals of a tiny handful of cases, the fact remains that overall, the incidence of wrongly convicted death row inmates is very, very low.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
How many innocent people do you find it acceptable to kill? Seriously wondering.

One of my favorite quotes fits pretty well here.
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>For we each of us deserve everything, every luxury that was ever piled on the tombs of the dead Kings, and we each of us deserve nothing, not a mouthful of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.
- Ursula K. LeGuin, The Dispossessed
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Relic25 · February 2003

Depends on how many would be spared given that x number of correctly convicted and sentenced persons were permanently made unable to repeat their crimes. Correct identification of actual offenders will only improve given time anyway, so for now, I wouldn't be opposed to anything below 0.50% (ie: 5 incorrect executions in every 1000), for example.

I knew someone would bring the 'human' argument into play. Yes, as Star Trek would have everyone believe, being human is just the greatest gift in the universe and makes us all so special and unique, but let's keep in mind that it's being human and thinking like humans that have brought us to the state we exist in today. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?

For the benefit of those who might not understand, yes, a lot of what I'm saying is satirical. This does not mean that I don't personally support many of my own thoughts and ideas though. I am a great advocate of balance, and to maintain the balance in all things, it is sometimes necessary to occupy one extreme end of the see-saw in order to counter the other side, no matter where the matter stands morally. For anyone who has trouble thinking outside of morality's constraints, let me put this another way. I am capable of supporting something that some may perceive as 'evil' if it is necessary to level the scales.

Punishment For Crimes

Comments