Capital Punishment/life Sentence Alternative: Pic
Marik_Steele
To rule in hell... Join Date: 2002-11-20 Member: 9466Members
To rule in hell... Join Date: 2002-11-20 Member: 9466Members
<div class="IPBDescription">"Permanent" induced coma</div> Anyone who's listened to all of ilovebees knows I'm not the one who came up with this idea.
Consider this: for cases of people accused of extreme crimes, life sentences and the death penalty both have pros and cons. One is considered more expensive than the other due to maintenance. One allows for the release of the convicted person if they are proven not guilty years later. The list for both goes on, but I'll skip to the idea brought forth for this thread:
PIC, "Permanent" induced coma.
Rather than the death sentence (example: by lethal injection), imagine having convicted persons put in a medically-induced coma. They'd be sentenced to lie in bed, unconscious and with the appropriate life support equipment, until the end of their life (or whenever they were proven not guilty, whichever came first).
The goal of this is to make a compromise between the death penalty and life sentence. Reduce maintenance costs of facilities (cafeteria, workout room, showers, laundromat, etc), reduce cost of employees from guards and others to just supervising doctors (+ smaller contingent of guards to prevent break-<i>ins</i>), and still have the ability to wake up inmates who are proven not guilty later.
Discuss.
Consider this: for cases of people accused of extreme crimes, life sentences and the death penalty both have pros and cons. One is considered more expensive than the other due to maintenance. One allows for the release of the convicted person if they are proven not guilty years later. The list for both goes on, but I'll skip to the idea brought forth for this thread:
PIC, "Permanent" induced coma.
Rather than the death sentence (example: by lethal injection), imagine having convicted persons put in a medically-induced coma. They'd be sentenced to lie in bed, unconscious and with the appropriate life support equipment, until the end of their life (or whenever they were proven not guilty, whichever came first).
The goal of this is to make a compromise between the death penalty and life sentence. Reduce maintenance costs of facilities (cafeteria, workout room, showers, laundromat, etc), reduce cost of employees from guards and others to just supervising doctors (+ smaller contingent of guards to prevent break-<i>ins</i>), and still have the ability to wake up inmates who are proven not guilty later.
Discuss.
Comments
Also, imagine waking up 20 years from now, without knowing what happened in the last two decades. How would that feel?
Also, imagine waking up 20 years from now, without knowing what happened in the last two decades. How would that feel? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To the first sentence: curiously enough, this question reminds me of a part of a recent computer game where the player character is a prisoner. I'll have to put the following in spoiler tags, as it is by definition at 2/3 through the game:
<!--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--><span style='color:#031D1F'>Towards the end of the Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, Riddick is placed in the 3rd level of inprisonment, intended to be impossible to escape: cryosleep. When the player is put in this situation, they experience repeated short segments where the screen fades in, and they are in a small, cylindrical room. A voice over the intercom says things like "This is your mandatory daily two minute exercise period. Under <whatever fictional legal decision> it is your right and your only right..." [edit]Needless to say, he does escape this to continue escaping the prison and moving on to the events of both movies. But until the player finds a way (because none of this is a cutscene), the segments fade in and out, supposedly being a different day each time.</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regular excercise periods could alleviate the muscle deterioration problem, but requires better technology to safely bring inmates in/out of consciousness safely on such a regular basis. It would likely also increase the need for security personell.
But I do see a good reason for it....it's worth thinking about, for sure.
To the 2nd sentence: how would it feel? Under a no-regular-exercise system, the only ones being woken up would be those found not guilty later; I'd likely be glad I hadn't spent that time under a 'life" sentence being bored 24/7, and I'd most definitely be happy I'd been put under PIC instead of being flat-out killed. As for learning about the world, I'd feel really angry/sad I'd missed out on so much, and also very curious and excited to learn what I'd missed.
Consider this: for cases of people accused of extreme crimes, life sentences and the death penalty both have pros and cons. One is considered more expensive than the other due to maintenance. One allows for the release of the convicted person if they are proven not guilty years later. The list for both goes on, but I'll skip to the idea brought forth for this thread:
PIC, "Permanent" induced coma.
Rather than the death sentence (example: by lethal injection), imagine having convicted persons put in a medically-induced coma. They'd be sentenced to lie in bed, unconscious and with the appropriate life support equipment, until the end of their life (or whenever they were proven not guilty, whichever came first).
The goal of this is to make a compromise between the death penalty and life sentence. Reduce maintenance costs of facilities (cafeteria, workout room, showers, laundromat, etc), reduce cost of employees from guards and others to just supervising doctors (+ smaller contingent of guards to prevent break-<i>ins</i>), and still have the ability to wake up inmates who are proven not guilty later.
Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm totally against the death penalty but not because of the killing. I think if you are proven guilty of a really heinous crime that you should sit in a little cell with nothing more than a toilet and basic essentials to live, so that you can think about what you did that got you there and suffer the agony of guilt. To me, death is an escape for them.
Consider this: for cases of people accused of extreme crimes, life sentences and the death penalty both have pros and cons. One is considered more expensive than the other due to maintenance. One allows for the release of the convicted person if they are proven not guilty years later. The list for both goes on, but I'll skip to the idea brought forth for this thread:
PIC, "Permanent" induced coma.
Rather than the death sentence (example: by lethal injection), imagine having convicted persons put in a medically-induced coma. They'd be sentenced to lie in bed, unconscious and with the appropriate life support equipment, until the end of their life (or whenever they were proven not guilty, whichever came first).
The goal of this is to make a compromise between the death penalty and life sentence. Reduce maintenance costs of facilities (cafeteria, workout room, showers, laundromat, etc), reduce cost of employees from guards and others to just supervising doctors (+ smaller contingent of guards to prevent break-<i>ins</i>), and still have the ability to wake up inmates who are proven not guilty later.
Discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm totally against the death penalty but not because of the killing. I think if you are proven guilty of a really heinous crime that you should sit in a little cell with nothing more than a toilet and basic essentials to live, so that you can think about what you did that got you there and suffer the agony of guilt. To me, death is an escape for them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's assuming they have an conscience. Most people who commit a crime which warrants the death penalty don't really have one, at least not one they can't totally ignore.
Our society has developed in such a fashion that some of the population feels that the death penalty needs to exist and be carried out so often - it becomes an item on the news, politicians make stands on it, etc. - and for victims, it's said to sometimes bring closure (and sometimes not).
CWAG: I'm not sure it's the suffering of guilt that's always an issue. For some, they are either suffering and they don't understand/care why, while the other aspects of the punishment is that they lose years of their lives, live in a poor environment, and emerge from their sentence with not only a moral stain (which makes it hard to find jobs, find a mate, whatever) but loss of real-world survival skills and contact with loved ones, if any.
While I haven't been in prison and I don't know what it's like, I wonder what the prisoners would say, given the alternatives - "You can either experience life in jail, or life as a vegetable." I think some people might say it's better to live the jail life - because it's a life (exercise, social interaction, food, etc), poor though it may be - and some people would say "I'd rather be unconscious so I don't have to go through the jail experience."
The threat is gone temporarily, but the burden still exists and the danger to society is still in existence, without purpose. Ideally, the death penalty removes both of these downsides. Admittedly, the way death row works now it costs just as much money as normal prison, but a more efficient manner of this would be better for the people as a whloe than permanent imprisonment or permanent comas.
Which is simply using someone else's life as a means to an end: exactly what we purport to condemn when murderers kill. It's just unbelievably silly to pretend that acting like a killer somehow makes the original killing okay.
The threat is gone temporarily, but the burden still exists and the danger to society is still in existence, without purpose. Ideally, the death penalty removes both of these downsides. Admittedly, the way death row works now it costs just as much money as normal prison, but a more efficient manner of this would be better for the people as a whloe than permanent imprisonment or permanent comas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The price of maintaining the prisoner is simply the price of maintaining a prison system, and one well worth paying to protect society from criminals.
The threat is gone temporarily, but the burden still exists and the danger to society is still in existence, without purpose. Ideally, the death penalty removes both of these downsides. Admittedly, the way death row works now it costs just as much money as normal prison, but a more efficient manner of this would be better for the people as a whloe than permanent imprisonment or permanent comas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The price of maintaining the prisoner is simply the price of maintaining a prison system, and one well worth paying to protect society from criminals. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't mean we should pay in excess - infact, you could probably agree that if a significantly more efficient and morally responsible way of cutting costs could be found, we could allocate those same funds to prevention instead of detention. Either by investing in police and the judicial branch, or god forbid education <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment.
It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, there are some who simply can't be rehabilitated.
Your opinion on the death penalty may also reveal your general opinion of your own death. Some people would prefer to live an eternity in a jail cell, but I'm not one of them. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rehabilitation makes the (huge) assumption that:
a) The criminal was acting irrationally, and
b) They <i>want</i> to be rehabilitated.
Both of which are mass generalizations, and both of which are more often than not wrong. You can't "rehabilitate" someone who was acting with a clear mind while commiting the act, because there's nothing in their mind that you can fix. If they were acting without thought it may be possible, but then they would have plead insanity and chances are wouldn't have been put in jail immediately.
To add onto this, you cant quantify rehabilitation compared to just plain old punishment, and this would annihilate the idea of "jury of peers". Any average person can look at what someone's done and through that estimate a just punishment, but no one can look at a murder and say "what that man needs is a strict regiment of blah blah blah twice a week for the next 10 years in order to make him a better member of society". You can't expect your normal juror to have that knowledge of human psychology.
What all that means is trials would eventually be presided over by a comittee of psychologists instead of peers, which would end all notions of fair trial we have right now.
Also, the "cruel and unusual punishment" laws would immediately be kicked out of the window, because there is nothing to define "cruel and unusual rehabilitation". This would mean that the judicial system would be able to use <i>any means necessary</i> to "rehabilitate" criminals.
Does this all sit right with you? Because this sounds a hell of a lot more like a moral violation than any death penalty or life imprisonment.
It doesn't matter whether you are putting someone to sleep or killing them, the principle is still retarded. Rehabilitation is what people need, not punishment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, there are some who simply can't be rehabilitated. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. There are those that no amount of psychological help will save, and the only option is either a strong deterrant and an end all consequence.
A few cents actually,
anyways, this whole idea reminds me of what they did to murdurers in Minority Report.
Basically same thing, put people in coma etc.
I dont think this would ever pass at least not any time in our life times.
1.possibility of innocence
2.the value of human life
at the moment it costs more to have someone executed rather than put in prison for a lifetime... so jail seems to make more economic sense neway...
btw.. I HARDLY think that an induced coma would be more economically viable than putting sum1 in orison for life. Think about it... life support equipment, including respirators, dialysis machines etc. can cost thousands A DAY to keep running.
Besides the whole idea is filled with morality issues. Sure u r not killing the guy but u are definately damaging his body... some of which may be irreversible. IF the person has been convicted of a crime he did not commit and then is awakened with disabilities, he has been severely punished for a crime he did not commit.