Capital Punishment For Any Crime....
Shockeh
If a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it... Join Date: 2002-11-19 Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
If a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it... Join Date: 2002-11-19 Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Wait, hear me out on this.</div> Hi all,
This came up in IRC, so I present it here.
Yes, that topic looks nice & controversial doesn't it? Well, I exaggerated a little. For one, I don't include really minor misdemeanours in this. (yes, I'm aware that drawing the line between what is & isn't a misdemeanour is a <i><b>flaw</i></b> present.)
The idea is as thus. Any crime of significant weight, should contain the potential for the death penalty should the offender have been convicted for this at least twice before. (To avoid the possibility of double setups)
The theorem behind this is....
<b>"By commiting a crime, society dispenses justice, so both the offender, other potential offenders and the public are reminded that this is not acceptable behaviour in society.
However, a repeat offender not only undermines this belief in other individuals, both potential offenders who see they can escape punishment and still commit the crime as well as the public who may feel justice is unable to control these offenders, but also shows they have no intention of modifying their behaviour to fit into our rules laid down.
As such, they should have to face the situation of society withdrawing it's benefits to them. This would result in either capital punishment or exile. As we currently have due to globalization an effective method of exile, and it is simply cost effective otherwise, capital punishment becomes a legitimate option, with no 'death row' where the public feels their own resources are squandered on supporting those who have proven they have no intention of supporting society."</b>
This is my theory on the matter, it's entirely from the depths of my own head, and as this is the discussions forum, I'm presenting it to hear others opinions on the matter, both good & bad.
Thanks for reading,
- Shockwave
This came up in IRC, so I present it here.
Yes, that topic looks nice & controversial doesn't it? Well, I exaggerated a little. For one, I don't include really minor misdemeanours in this. (yes, I'm aware that drawing the line between what is & isn't a misdemeanour is a <i><b>flaw</i></b> present.)
The idea is as thus. Any crime of significant weight, should contain the potential for the death penalty should the offender have been convicted for this at least twice before. (To avoid the possibility of double setups)
The theorem behind this is....
<b>"By commiting a crime, society dispenses justice, so both the offender, other potential offenders and the public are reminded that this is not acceptable behaviour in society.
However, a repeat offender not only undermines this belief in other individuals, both potential offenders who see they can escape punishment and still commit the crime as well as the public who may feel justice is unable to control these offenders, but also shows they have no intention of modifying their behaviour to fit into our rules laid down.
As such, they should have to face the situation of society withdrawing it's benefits to them. This would result in either capital punishment or exile. As we currently have due to globalization an effective method of exile, and it is simply cost effective otherwise, capital punishment becomes a legitimate option, with no 'death row' where the public feels their own resources are squandered on supporting those who have proven they have no intention of supporting society."</b>
This is my theory on the matter, it's entirely from the depths of my own head, and as this is the discussions forum, I'm presenting it to hear others opinions on the matter, both good & bad.
Thanks for reading,
- Shockwave
Comments
Not that killing people for committing crimes isn't already controversial.
I've been more in favour of returning to medieval forms of punishment like broken bones and amputated fingers and stuff. "But it didn't work back then!" Of course not, people were WAY more desperate back then for food and money. Nowadays, people generally shy away from physical pain (and come on, who doesn't), and we're generally a... "wussier" race of humans.
What i'm saying is this: Back in those days, a branding or a hacked off finger was an acceptable risk if the reward is staying alive/feeding your family etc (robbing bread and stuff), whereas a broken arm really isn't a nice price to pay for a new mobile phone.
Various other penalties are in line in my mind. Rape? Smashed pelvis. Murder? Broken arms and legs (with a sledgehammer). Simple and effective, no need for a jail, just a room with a hammer connected to the court, then out onto the streets.
Brutal? So what, they asked for it. They knew the rules, they committed their crimes within full knowledge that it was against the law, and they knew the punishments that were laid down for that crime.
The only trouble with a system like this is exactly the same problem with the death penalty (at least in my mind): There are very few cases in which the person is guilty beyond any doubt at all (there's usually a 1-2% chance that the judgement could be wrong, and that's just not acceptable). So courts would need to be vastly improved, especially for the minor crimes.
And there would have to be a new kind of system introduced, where it is decided whether the crime was justified or not, and whether the actual penalty (broken bone or sommat) should be carried out, or just a warning/fine. Say if the penalty for GBH is a broken wrist (for example), yet someone beat another person unconscious because they were provoked or they were defending their family or something.
Anyway, i'm up for a punishment system that actually makes people not want to commit crimes of any kind (as there is no real deterrent in the UK especially, apart from Jail Time that costs more than a 5 star hotel per night).
Cruel? So? Think of the victims family (the person who was murdered family, that is). My stance is, if you do something in full knowledge that it is wrong, and in full knowledge of the punishment/consequences of that deed, then there's no reason to expect anything less than the full punishment/consequence.
If there are any solutions, or adequate reforms to the justice system as we know it, I'm convinced that they are more radical than this type of change. Look at the after math of the drug laws in California, If history can teach us anything, we should see that people will continue to commit crimes no matter how harsh we make the penalty. Full prisons are less evidence that the justice system doesn't work, and more evidence that the above is true.
If all laws were just and the system better at determining guilt (the prospect of being tried by a jury of my "peers" is frightening), then there might be an arguement.
Other than that, some kinds of crime are more or less due to flaws in society, not always flaws in a person. Issues like drug dependancy and petty theft (like because you need to feed your family, not because you're a bored middle-class teen) should not occur if the government sufficiently takes care of its people. Then all that's really left are actions of the idiotic or insane, which I'm pretty sure have been barred from capital punishment anyway.
Televise the entire thing, too...
And while the criminal's body is healing they can get their mind healed as well, through counselling of their actions.
Rape a woman/man? Broken pelvis, and speak to a psycologist of why you did what you did. Then talk to social workers/other people who could help you further. Once the bone has healed enough, they can be released back into society, possibly with a job and appartment all setup for them when they get there in a free ride.
And if they screw up that - then it's repeated. If it's repeated too often, surgeries are performed without anestetic. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> If it's repeated even more, then they're put out onto the street, naked, and let crowds of people do what they will with the poor idiot. Afew hours later, if he's still alive, is recovered and sent through the process again as a last-ditch effort to put em back into society.
After that...
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
+===o=
||/ |
|| O
|| /|\
|| /\
__++_ ___
| | | |
| |
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
We stopped jailing drug addicts becuase they need REHABILITATION. NOT because their habits are abhorrent.
We incarcerate criminals beacuase they are a danger to society. We dont kill them because death solves nothing, and if anything, damages a society more then it heals it.
Breaking bones, killing people etc over things such as grand theft and felonies, will ultimately breed more hate for the justice system. You cant unkill a person. You cannot unbreak a bone. You cannot remove pain.
Judging by the posts thus far, I'd expect to see a mention of room 101 sooner or later...
Pain fades,
Bones heal,
Lessons are learnt...
and never forgotten!
The system is FLAWED.
You also cannot compensate a person should the verdict have been found to be incorrect in the fist place, hence adding evidence to the system being flawed.
Eventually, the cat will learn not to scratch the Sub-Woofer if you spritz it when it's "caught in the act." However, if you plead and talk with it saying "stop! PLEASE!", it wont learn a bloody thing what it should/should not do; not unless you back it up with some sort of physical-agressive movement or other action.
Even after months of this your cat continues to scratch the sound system (no matter what you seem to do with the system or the cat) it's possible that the cat has some sort of problem, and has to be dealt with by a doctor or have some sort of repellant placed on the system. [or altering the sound system's colors, if the cat doesn't like a color, even]
Even after visiting the vet AND doing just about everything, save one option, to both the cat and the sound system you can do only one thing: Sell the cat to someone else.
Rotten apples may become sweet - some will <i>always</i> stay rotten. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Humans can reason and understand, as well as know what they do.
Cats cannot.
Those whom cannot be rehabilitated get incarcerated.
I'll say this to you; Ask a victim of rape what an appreciable punishment is for their tormentor.
I garuntee that a broken pelvis will NEVER give them justice.
Thats a key word here. The law is not here to dispense punishment, it is here to dispense justice. If you kill, rape, or do any other crime that is a detriment to the society, then you are incarcerated for a long time, sometimes even permanently.
If you steal or do any other "low brow" crime, then you are slapped with a monetary fine or even short term incarceration. It might not be a complete deterrent, it may not be perfect, but I will say this much: It is far better then the alternatives you are proposing which spread misery hatred and pain.
Pain is not the way to punish a fully grown man. He is a man. He can reason. He can think. He knows the wrong that he does. He bears no resembelence to an unthinking animal, if he cannot see the wrong he does, that is why we have rehabilitation, to make him see the wrong he does. If he cannot see the wrong he does despite rehabilitation, then he remains incarcerated.
If you feel that humans need to be treated like animals to create a just society, the you seriously need to reevaluate your values towards your fellow man.
Precisely my point Cronos. These repeat offenders have shown they are incapable of reevaluating their values towards myself & the rest of the society whose rules I abide by in order to make my place in it.
I think my original idea has gone somewhat offtopic here. My theory was basically that there should be extreme measures employed by a third conviction. If there was a cheap simple way to exile someone or otherwise exclude them, I would choose this.
However I have to bear in mind this sort of exile forments revolt amongst people (criminals family for example, who tend to believe they're not guilty no matter how much evidence is levied against them)
If a man cannot adjust his behaviour to fit into society, why should we persist in wasting our resources in providing him with one?
Because, despite all his failings, he is still a human being. Not wanting to bring religion into this, but I feel a quote from Jesus might be of some use. When a woman who was caught in the act of adultery was brought before him, the pharases wanted to know what he would do, see if he would trip up. The penalty for such a sin was death by stoning. Jesus simply said "Let you who is without sin cast the first stone."
Yes, Criminals need to be punished, it would be anarchy without the justice system, but it is flawed. Judges are open to corruption, they are humans like everyone else. Juries can make mistakes, people get wrongly punished. Capitol punishment should never be brought back. Jail should not be emphasised as a place of punishment. Being separated from the people you know and care about is punishment enough. Jail should be about re-educating the criminals, preparing them for society once they get out. Repeat offenders just show the flaws in the system. If anything, we should be spending more on criminals in prison, helping them, not rejecting them. After all, they are human, like the rest of us.
Precisely my point Cronos. These repeat offenders have shown they are incapable of reevaluating their values towards myself & the rest of the society whose rules I abide by in order to make my place in it.
I think my original idea has gone somewhat offtopic here. My theory was basically that there should be extreme measures employed by a third conviction. If there was a cheap simple way to exile someone or otherwise exclude them, I would choose this.
However I have to bear in mind this sort of exile forments revolt amongst people (criminals family for example, who tend to believe they're not guilty no matter how much evidence is levied against them)
If a man cannot adjust his behaviour to fit into society, why should we persist in wasting our resources in providing him with one? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Branding people as "inferior" has always provided a great excuse for committing atrocities... hey , the US army is wasting its ressources to stabilize an Iraq full of "animals" , why not make a genocide and establish a democracy for the newcomers ?
Seriously , this thread is frightening. So many people willing to let medieval punishments back in the justice system... a good part of you are having a medieval mentality. Come on , I stopped thinking about mutilating the bad guys when I was like 7 years old. You're all lowering yourselves to the criminal's level , if not worse. The only french party supporting death penalty it the fascist one , says it all...
If I was thinking like the most of you , I'd nuke the US and UK right now to make sure no further atrocities are committed (pre-emptive strikes <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
In my humble opinion , it is okay to discuss about the death penalty (the anti's are always gaining ground <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->) but threads mentionning mutilation as a viable alternative to prison deserve nothing but a lock. *edit* what ZX said , there's nothing else to add , people trying to keep arguing would just embarrass themselves...
....
....
Yes, Criminals need to be punished, it would be anarchy without the justice system, but it is flawed. Judges are open to corruption, they are humans like everyone else. Juries can make mistakes, people get wrongly punished. Capitol punishment should never be brought back. Jail should not be emphasised as a place of punishment. Being separated from the people you know and care about is punishment enough. Jail should be about re-educating the criminals, preparing them for society once they get out. Repeat offenders just show the flaws in the system. If anything, we should be spending more on criminals in prison, helping them, not rejecting them. After all, they are human, like the rest of us. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose that's a fundamental difference in our lifeview in that case. I see anyone who proves themselves incapable of adapting to what is considered 'correct' behaviour in society as not deserving of rehabilitation.
Remember, I only proposed this as a 3rd step measure. Previously to that, I fully support giving other people the opportunity to reform, and rejoing society as useful individuals. This is aimed at those who don't appear to have any intention of doing so.
If they can't raise the inclination to help themselves, why should we?
N.B Others mentioned mutilation or other similar punishments, and I have not supported any of them. Torture makes the system appear to be indulging in cruelty, not justice.
EDIT : Sp.
John grew up in a nice, friendly suburb of Detroit, his father working at a big car company, his mother staying at home and taking care of her son and his little sister. John went to High School and had decent enough grades. It was a nice, though uneventful life.
That's why they said he had simply had bad luck, later on.
One night, Johnny had just turned 18, he and a few friends drank a little too much, and a little more after that on a party at Johns home - his parents were on vacation. Too drunk to stand straight, the topic shifted to how every of the boys could kick any other present persons behind. The atmosphere thickened, until John got the bad idea of mentioning his fathers gun in jest. His friends started poking fun at him because they had never seen any arms around the house before.
Trying to prove them wrong, John went into another room and got back with a revolver. Knowing that his father never left the gun loaded, he got the funny idea of pointing it at his best friend, and pulling the trigger.
Johns father had accidentally left a bullet in the chamber.
The judges weren't too harsh with John, who beat himself up over the thought of having fatally injured a boy he had grown up with. He got the mildest possible sentence for manslaughter and was instantly put into the hands of a psychatrist to treat the trauma.
After about a year of suicidal depressions, John got a grip on himself again. He made peace with the family of his friend, and decided to use the time in prison to learn how to fix cars. When he left, the prison guards noted that it was almost a pity they'd never see an inmate as civil as him again.
John got himself a job at a garage somewhere downtown Detroit. It wasn't the best paying job, but an ex-prisoner can't exactely hope for an employment at General Motors. The co-workers were mostly nice, although one of them seemed somewhat obscure. He just had too much money for this kind of job. Also, lots of pretty downtrodden types seemed to linger around him. Suspicion grew in John, but he tried to stay out of any trouble.
One night, he worked overtime to impress his boss. When he left the garage, he saw the shadowy co-worker vanish into a dark corner. John couldn't help his curiosity - he followed the guy - and watched him trade a suitcase full of little, white plastic bags against more cash than John had seen for a long time. John gapsed in surprise, and was seen by the drug trafficers. One pulled a gun out and told him to forget about what he had just seen.
Three months later, the police arrested his dealing co-worker, but it turned out that the guy had hidden significant amounts of dope in Johns always opened locker. The judges didn't put much faith in the claims of innocence of a convicted manslaughterer.
One evening in prison, John, who had always, as all guards would note in front of court, tried to stay out of trouble, was cornered by four big guys. John knew the type - as cliché as it may be by now, they usually exhibited heightened interest in the younger, better looking inmates, of which John was one. He braced himself for a fight.
"He never really knew how strong he was", his cellmate said, later.
According to your logic, Shockwave, John deserves the chair.
Perhaps the same crime repeatedly should be what I'm implying, and only those 'with intent'. For example, murder, yes, manslaughter, no. After all, this is why we have these 'accidental' laws in the first place.
(Please, for the love of God, don't go into drunk driving. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned that's murder, end of story.)
And, to be utterly ruthless and harsh (which, when it comes to justice, I freely admit I am) by the 3rd time, John should have 'got a clue' and known when to stop.
But then again, in joking I'd happily put stupidity down as a felony.
I object to the death penalty on theoretical grounds, but your application of a rigid 'three strike' system with a harshly extended punishment of whatever kind on the third occasion is in any case far, far from reality - just as the most glaring example, the danger of wrong court rulings is an ever present one (and don't tell me that 'three tries are plenty even then' - life is pretty damn long and offers lots of opportunities for screwing up).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, to be utterly ruthless and harsh (which, when it comes to justice, I freely admit I am) by the 3rd time, John should have 'got a clue' and known when to stop.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that he should've known better, but you are proposing to <i>end his life</i> over it. Kill him. Pull the plug. Realize what that means, put it into perspective with the story I presented, and consider that I had to stick to propabilities, which reality doesn't have to.
Add as many 'unless'es as you wish, your little suggestion here would earn countless nice, average people with the very real potential of becoming productive members of society again a stately funded last meal. If you truly believe this is just towards these individuals, I fear I won't be able to continue this discussion for a complete lack of a common ethical ground.
But isn't the current system as well, where the population feels more & more by year they're being stripped of their own earnt resources, in order that those who don't feel they have to abide by societies rules can survive, and indeed in some well publicised cases prosper?
So such a rigid system wouldn't work, and would be unethical unless you could near pefect a trial system (a rework which is in itself, admittedly near impossible) that would allow a much lesser margin of error.
But a change, I believe, will need to be made, and within the next 50 years at best. Simply put, as a greater & greater proportion of the population feels apathy towards the system, the system begins to fail further, due to lack of support from the very society it protects.
There's my shameless prophet moment over I feel. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Believe it or not, the amount of capital crime has been on a decline for a great deal of time by now. In the light of this, I can not see how a more strict and rigid judical system, which appears to be the direction you favor, would help.
1st mistake was getting drunk. Fair enough of a mistake though, it happens.
2nd mistake was saying that his father had a gun, but that's when he was drunk, and thus by stupid actions he committed further, stupider actions.
3rd mistake was taking the gun, and pulling the trigger. (Again, stupid actions cause stupider actions -- is "stupider" even a word? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> bleh.)
4th mistake was following someone into a dark alley/corner. (It's a dark alley in <u>DOWNTOWN</u> DETROIT, for crist sakes! <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
5th mistake was getting caught in the act of seeing the transaction take place.
6th mistake was not telling anyone about the transaction.
7th mistake was not buying a lock for a PERSONAL LOCKER.
8th mistake was not having the police check for prints on the drug baggies.
You story was good, Nem, but you forgot that the police would've checked the baggies of drugs for finger prints or some similar evidence. There was <b>NOTHING</b> tying John to the trifficing charge, so he <b>SHOULD'VE</b> gone free w/o ANY trouble. Yes, i watch Cops. Why do you think they wear latex gloves when they search someone? <i>So they don't spoil the evidence</i>.
As well, even if they found that one bag had a fingerprint on it, the others might not have those fingerprints on it as well, thus saying that something's not exactly right in the entire scheme of things in the dealy. Otherwise, the POLICE themselves would've been tried in court for misconduct or some similar offense of where you neglect to do your job properly.
Good story, but it just didn't work from a view of a officer.
[Unless John's fingerprints and DNA were all over those bags of dope, he would've walked free.]
Note however that what you see on Cops and reality are two different affairs. An officer who's being videotaped takes extra care - my parents (both of which are working in prisons) can tell you endless stories of people that spent years in jail innocently because the police neglected to follow leads as obvious as those you just mentioned. In many cases, the mere existence of a past felony is used to overrule 'minor discrepancies'.
Capital Punishment doesn't solve anything in most cases.
In fact, it increases the crime.
When a man realized he's already well into death sentence, he just continues his killings. He realizes he may as well fight his way out (it's death vs. a 1% chance of getting away). In robbery and hostage situations, this tends to happen.
And most killings are crimes of passions, or done without conciousness (drunk, drugged). In these cases, the criminals don't have a clue about the consequences.
I would say that the ones who commit the crimes either never seem to think they will get caught, or can't help themselves otherwise. In either case, capital punishment doesn't work.
Though, I don't think the government should expend more money either. The government needs to consider putting the criminals in their own town or something and have them raise their own crops and feed themselves. It would be very inexpensive. They need only worry about keeping them from escaping, and even that can be taken care of by putting them on an island. Seems a lot like a movie, doesn't it?
I actually thought that was a pretty cool idea. Not inhumane, because it is only as inhumane as the people there allow themselves to be as long as they give themselves food and water.
Well, it worked for the brits and australia didn't it?
Just not to Australia. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Russia actually does that - their prisons are basically big farm complexes in which prisoners do live in more or less rural, self-structuring communities, and let me tell you, it's neither humane nor inexpensive.
It isn't humane as the leadership is regularily taken over by the most violent, unstable criminals or those belonging to a syndicate of some kind, while the morallically 'better' people have to suffer from the constant pressure laid on them. It isn't inexpensive because you've got to allow some of those criminals eventually out again, and you can bet various of your orifices that they <i>won't</i> be resocialized by that time - generally, one has to assume an ex-felon to be either traumatic or with brand new, very in depth connections to the Russian mafia or a similiar criminal structure - which leads to <i>more</i> crimes and thus <i>more</i> costs. Also, as you might imagine, the structure of these prisons doesn't lend itself to hygienics, which leads to them being true epedemic risks.