capital punishment is wrong

ali-queenb

what do u tink?

philologos

If someone has murdered someone I think theres nothing wrong with execution however I think Europe is more civilised than the USA so I will say that capital punishment is wrong

Piste

I think this has nothnig to do with the Junior Cert.

philologos

yeah it has nowt to do with it

AngryBadger

I have no problem with capital punishment whatsoever. The legal system in this country is too lenient, and often doesn't work at all. Tougher punishment should, (in theory), act as a deterrant to serious crimes, and if it doesn't then at least some of the perpetrators will be off the streets permanently.

I'm not saying we shouldn't also try to rehabilitate criminals, or that we shouldn't try to disciver why certain people commit crimes, (ie.s in terms of social marginalistaion and so on), but there also eneds to be a very clear line drawn in the sand, a line people know not to step over.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

I have no problem with capital punishment whatsoever. The legal system in this country is too lenient, and often doesn't work at all. Tougher punishment should, (in theory), act as a deterrant to serious crimes,.

But it doesn't in pratice.

Look at the US, it is still possible in certain states to be recieve 10-15 sentences for cannabis possesion, and life inprisonment for cultivation yet cannabis is the largest cash crop in the US.

Not to mention the fact that the US has the largest prison population in the western world is one of the few countries that will impose death sentences on minors, and the mentally challenged, and yet its prison population is steadily rising

Or look at saudi arabia;

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031...3922-7479r.htm

Anyone who suggests capital punishment or multilation is a deterent should read the above.

I'm tired of this "tougher punishment should in theory work" it doesn't, it appeased frothing at the mouth right wingers who have little interest or little understanding of the root causes of crime.

ali-queenb

well let me just say "the quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,.... tis mightiest in the mightiest,... when mercy seasons justice" just think about that and here sure those quotes have sumthing to do with the junior cert and now for my very on quote you are killing someone too bso why shouldnt u then face the death penalty then...when death penalty is used it is a form of revenge...justice is dead when a person dies for it what happens if person is found guilty but is innocent?do not kill.ohh to the people who said iut not bout the j.c couldnt find other talks elsewhere and isint it best to talk about it with people your own age

Freelancer

ali-queenb wrote:

well let me just say "the quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,.... tis mightiest in the mightiest,... when mercy seasons justice" just think about that and here sure those quotes have sumthing to do with the junior cert and now for my very on quote you are killing someone too bso why shouldnt u then face the death penalty then...when death penalty is used it is a form of revenge...justice is dead when a person dies for it what happens if person is found guilty but is innocent?do not kill.ohh to the people who said iut not bout the j.c couldnt find other talks elsewhere and isint it best to talk about it with people your own age

Just taking a punt here. You're quoting the second sentence here aren't you?

ali-queenb

Freelancer wrote:

Just taking a punt here. You're quoting the second sentence here aren't you?

huhh wot u on about

sturgo

ali-queenb wrote:

what do u tink?

it's great! everyone should doing it.

Capt'n Midnight

ali-queenb wrote:

what do u tink?

IMHO It's too lenient.
There is always the possibility of reincarnation.

Flippant but sill more relevant than your posts so far, as there is a possibility

OP - you are supposed to put some arguments forward instead of just stating something. See the Monty Python skit about the guy paying for an argument. The discussion about capital punishment has been going on for a very long time and still hasn't been resolved. A new insight would be nice, facts are good too, statistics, quotes, opinions backed up by reasons also good.

Oh and religious quotes on a HUMANITIES forum - great argument :rolleyes:

Freelancer

ali-queenb wrote:

huhh wot u on about

So taking honours english then?

I was remarking about how eloquent your quote is, in comparsion to the language and argument you're putting forward.

Tar.Aldarion

To quote the OP, eloquently, Capital punishment is wrong.

ali-queenb

Freelancer wrote:

So taking honours english then?

I was remarking about how eloquent your quote is, in comparsion to the language and argument you're putting forward.

i may b taking honours but i still dont no wot elequent means quote is from mercant of venice speaker portia though she as the death penalty is hypocrisy it self.em i just started this thread to tell people its wrong....cause it is ohh and sturgo and captn midnight get a life ur not funny

Capt'n Midnight

ali-queenb wrote:

what do u tink?

Verb 1. tink - make or emit a high sound; "tinkling bells"
chink, tinkle, clink

There are people on this site who've indicated, perhaps with hyperbole, that it would be a suitable punishment for text speak.

It's wrong when used as a political tool for re-election. It's wrong when the decision to use it is based in part on demographics. It's wrong when the number of miscarriges are relatively high. It's wrong to say it's cheaper than life imprisonment when the costs of legal battles generally outweigh the cost of life imprisonment.

So even without looking at the ethical considerations the use of capital punishment in the US for example can't be justified.

And we still haven't got to look at the deterent value of it, if any.

OT Then again we live in a country where you can get seven years for stealing a handbag and be out after a year for killing someone while drunk driving (same judge BTW. ) Where "life" means single digit prison terms. Prison doesn't seem to be a deterent for many drug gang members where the prospect of maybe doing time is so slight and short. At present for every gang related killing about one year is spent in prison. ( detection rate x average sentence ) The criminal assets bureau and higher conviction rate would probably do a better job of detering people.

ali-queenb

captn midnight it is wrong on every single thing full stop.... tell me what is wrong with text speak i want to know piste and someone else told me but they had stupid reasons

Capt'n Midnight

ali-queenb wrote:

captn midnight it is wrong on every single thing full stop....

ah you mean

It's RIGHT when used as a political tool for re-election.
It's RIGHT when the decision to use it is based in part on demographics.
It's RIGHTwhen the number of miscarriges are relatively high.
It's RIGHT to say it's cheaper than life imprisonment.

So even without looking at the ethical considerations the use of capital punishment in the US for example CAN be justified.

The_Minister

These are pedantic points, but they are relevent:

Freelancer wrote:

cannabis is the largest cash crop in the US..

US is an advanced country it does not rely on cash crops like other countries and thus has a great diversity. If you said this about Brazil it would be impressive.

Freelancer wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the US........is one of the few countries that will impose death sentences on minors, .

I believe the Supreme court found this illegal. Remember a few months ago when all the hardliners were complaining about this "liberal bleedin' hearts"

Freelancer wrote:

and the mentally challenged, .

The man who you are refering to was not mentally retarded when he died. His IQ had risen to over 70

ali-queenb

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

ah you mean

It's RIGHT when used as a political tool for re-election.
It's RIGHT when the decision to use it is based in part on demographics.
It's RIGHTwhen the number of miscarriges are relatively high.
It's RIGHT to say it's cheaper than life imprisonment.

So even without looking at the ethical considerations the use of capital punishment in the US for example CAN be justified.

no no and no you know what i mean.... capital punishment is NEVER justified didint you ever do the merchant of venice or to kill a mocking bird no....

Capt'n Midnight

ali-queenb wrote:

no no and no you know what i mean.... capital punishment is NEVER justified didint you ever do the merchant of venice or to kill a mocking bird no....

In this version he gets the pound of flesh http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070791

Shakespere ( or however he spelt his name ) came from a era where capital punishment was rife. His plays are violent and most of the other characters use violence to solve problems, though in many cases there are repercussions. And what does that tell us about the use of capital punishment by repressive governments ?

Should we boycott Hollywood films because of their incessant use of vigilantism ?

TBH it's more or less a non-issue in Europe baring major changes in governments. Western governments haven't used much pressure to try to get places like China to abandon it. And the US will continue to do whatever it want's.

OT
The US exports a LOT of government subsidised corn. One of the problems with this is that corn syrup is everywhere. It's used a sweetener for junk food. Corn is not very nutritious as an example Kellogs & Co. fortify it with vitamins because they are legally obliged to do.
It's a big crop by any standard.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

US is an advanced country it does not rely on cash crops like other countries and thus has a great diversity. If you said this about Brazil it would be impressive.

The US has a powerful farm lobby, The Corn industry is worth over $20 billion dollars a year, the cannabis industry is guessed at being worth $25 billion dollars a year. If you don't think that the fact that there is an illegal industry worth billion inside the US economy you need to get your head sorted.

I believe the Supreme court found this illegal. Remember a few months ago when all the hardliners were complaining about this "liberal bleedin' hearts"

link please.

The man who you are refering to was not mentally retarded when he died. His IQ had risen to over 70

Link please.

And what difference does it make when you prove it, he was still sentenced to death when his IQ was that of a minor.

These are pedantic points, but they are relevent:

And firespinner, no they are not. It is pointless pedantic and in what we've come to expect from you pointless attempts at point scoring.

How does any of your above points change the thrust of the argument, angry badger has claimed tougher sentences reduce crime, I've pointed out using three examples, the tough drug penalities in the US have not stopped cannabis growth from becoming a $25 billion dollar industry, in fact the US has the largest prison population in the world (outside of china), the liberal use of the death penalty has not abated the murder rate. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia which the ignorant cite as proof that being tough on criminals reduces crime rates, has seen an exponentaly increase in crime in recent times.

You can nitpick all you want about the specifics, but it doesn't change the facts.

ali-queenb

what are ye all on about corn for?.......captn midnight did you read merchant of venice?what did you think of portia.....was there a thread about this before

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

But it doesn't in pratice.

Given that America has a population of nearly 300 million people i think it's fair to say they're going to have more crim that most countries, and a larger prison population.

Is it not equally fair to say that the crime situation could be considerably worse than it currently is if there was no capital punishment whatsoever?

Give me a workable alternative and I'll gladly listen.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

Given that America has a population of nearly 300 million people i think it's fair to say they're going to have more crim that most countries, and a larger prison population.

That statistic is for per capita, not just total population.

Prison populaton per 100.000 inhabitants:

USA 725 Russia 713 Great Britain and Northern Ireland 124 Canada 102 Germany 98 Italy 92 France 80 Sweden 64 Danmark 61 Iceland 29

However, US becon of freedom has more prisoners in its system, than China.


In absolute terms, the United States currently has the largest prison population in the world, with more than 2 million [1]. In 2002, both Russia and China (the latter with a population 4 times that of the USA) also had prison populations in excess of 1 million [2], [3].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment#Prison_population_statistics

As a percentage the only country that beats the US is Rwanda, and a significant amount of their population are charged with genocide.

Is it not equally fair to say that the crime situation could be considerably worse than it currently is if there was no capital punishment whatsoever?

No it's not, clearly because of the consistently rising prison population despite increasingly stiff prison terms and death sentences, stiffer penalties aren't reducing crime or decreasing prison populations. You cannot say it could it be worse, unless you offer some evidence to support it.

Give me a workable alternative and I'll gladly listen.

You're the one who claimed that

Tougher punishment should, (in theory), act as a deterrant to serious crimes,

I'm the one pointing out that your "theory" doesn't work in reality. Don't make an unworkable claim about what will fix the crime problem, and then demand I come up with an alternative. Also this topic has recently been discussed in Politics and I've offered a number of alternatives, check out the thread "sort out the criminal justice system" there.

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

I'm the one pointing out that your "theory" doesn't work in reality. Don't make an unworkable claim about what will fix the crime problem, and then demand I come up with an alternative. Also this topic has recently been discussed in Politics and I've offered a number of alternatives, check out the thread "sort out the criminal justice system" there.

I'm not trawling for your postings, I'd be interested to hear your alternatives in the context of THIS thread, but I'm not going searching for them.

I'm not saying capital punishment "will fix the problem", in my first post i observed the absolute necessity of addressing the sources of crime, that said I have no problem with the death penalty being handed out for certain crimes, and I do believe part of the reason there is so much crime in ireland is because there is little to no faith in the judicial system. I have no problem with hearing alternatives, but as it stands that's my opinion.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

I'm not trawling for your postings, I'd be interested to hear your alternatives in the context of THIS thread, but I'm not going searching for them.

Fine in this thread capital punishment doesn't work, it doesn't fix criminal problems. We're talking specifically about capital punishment for crimes.

I'm not saying capital punishment "will fix the problem", in my first post i observed the absolute necessity of addressing the sources of crime,

No in your first post you said;

Tougher punishment should, (in theory), act as a deterrant to serious crimes,.

it doesn't. Period.

I'm not saying we shouldn't also try to rehabilitate criminals, or that we shouldn't try to disciver why certain people commit crimes, (ie.s in terms of social marginalistaion and so on), but there also eneds to be a very clear line drawn in the sand, a line people know not to step over.

And then you came in with some vague stuff about rehabiliation before descending in more Magnum force lingo.

that said I have no problem with the death penalty being handed out for certain crimes,

Did you know the judge in the original trial of the Birmingham six, regreted that they had not be charged with treason, because it meant he was unable to hand out the death penalty?

and I do believe part of the reason there is so much crime in ireland is because there is little to no faith in the judicial system.

I don't have alot of faith in the judicial system, which is why I'm not thrilled with giving it the power of life and death

I have no problem with hearing alternatives, but as it stands that's my opinion.

You've put forward a claim that harsher penalties work, I pointed out they don't, and given evidence to support why I think this way. You're now basically saying, "I'm right, but I'll listen to you put forward a case to argue aganist my position, but I won't lower myself to actualy defend my own position."

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

"I'm right, but I'll listen to you put forward a case to argue aganist my position, but I won't lower myself to actualy defend my own position."

yes that's essentialy what I'm saying, but that's only when I'm talking to you.

If your' point is that the judicial system is flawed, and therefore cannot be depended upon to harbour something as huge as the power of life and death, fair enough, I agree with that, in principal. But we still need some form of deterrant, and your logic seems to be that "Crimes still happen, therefore capital punishment doesn't work", which makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm just obtuse, or maybe you should put more effort into clarifying your perspective, and less into taking pot shots at me because i disagree with you, (whatever you opinion happens to be).

Moreover, you're still not offering an alternative to deterring criminals, maybe capital punishment isn't going to eliminate all crime, but if there isn't an alternative then i have no problem with it deterring at least some crime.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

yes that's essentialy what I'm saying, but that's only when I'm talking to you.

If your' point is that the judicial system is flawed, and therefore cannot be depended upon to harbour something as huge as the power of life and death, fair enough, I agree with that, in principal.

So why are you for capital punishment then?

But we still need some form of deterrant, and your logic seems to be that

My point is.

Tougher punishment should, (in theory), act as a deterrant to serious crimes,.

Isn't true, it's the kind of limited right wing "prison works" mentality. You've offered nothing substantive to support your claim capital punishment or severe sentences will act as a deterrant. I am attacking that position.

"Crimes still happen, therefore capital punishment doesn't work", which makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm just obtuse, or maybe you should put more effort into clarifying your perspective,

Nope it's pretty simple, you've made a claim that harsh sentences deter crime, you've offered nothing substantive to support this assertion.

I on the other hand, pointed out that countries with the death penalty, and cited the US and Saudi Arabia, have massive prison population, and significant crime rates, so clearly severe sentences don't work, and you've been pussy footing around this.

Moreover, you're still not offering an alternative to deterring criminals, maybe capital punishment isn't going to eliminate all crime, but if there isn't an alternative then i have no problem with it deterring at least some crime.

But you've not offered any evidence that capital punishment will deter crime.

The thread is about capital punishment not what alternatives we have to it. We have an alternative. I disagree with capital punishment and have offered plenty of facts to support why I think it doesn't work.

You on the other hand haven't offered a reason why you think it will lower cirme, and instead of putting your case forward as to why it will, demand I build a case for an alternatives.

Capital Punishment doesn't work, it doesn't deter crime.

Before we go any forward why don't you try and put together an argument as to why you think it will.

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

Before we go any forward why don't you try and put together an argument as to why you think it will.

Why don't you offer me some plausible alternative, or solid proof that if we removed capital punishment the world over crime levels wouldn't go up.

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

Why don't you offer me some plausible alternative, or solid proof that if we removed capital punishment the world over crime levels wouldn't go up.

How on earth can offer proof of that?

What I can do cite the US a western country with capital punishment and high crime and murder rate.

You've offered no evidence that harsher sentences are a deterent for criminals.

I've offered plenty of evidence that harsher sentences aren't a deterent for criminals.

Instead of demanding I leap through ever more implausible and absurd hoops, how about you make a case, citing evidence, that capital punishment is a deterent.

Dudess

If you can get your hands on a documentary called Fourteen Days in May, you'll be given a good insight into just how horrible this system is. It's about Edward Earl Johnson, a young black man who was executed in 1987. He was sentenced to death at the age of 18 and languished on Death Row for the next eight years. The crimes he was convicted of were horrific - the murder of a policeman and the rape of a 60-year-old woman. However, he maintains he did not commit these crimes and that a confession was extracted from him by force. It is one of the most distressing and heartbreaking programmes I have ever seen and is so powerful I really think those in favour of the death penalty might reconsider if they were to see it. Do a Google search. There's lots of stuff on it.

Zombrex

AngryBadger wrote:

But we still need some form of deterrant

There is very little evidence that capital punishment is any more of a deterrent than life imprisionment, and quite a bit of evidence and logic that it isn't any more of a deterrent.

If you think about it it makes sense that it wouldn't be. Who in their right mind goes "well I don't mind risking 20 years inside for murder, but I'm not risking a death sentence". People don't work like that. Something like 90% of murders committed in America are crimes of passion (you find your wife in bed with another man) or panic (a gang gun battle, a robbery gone wrong). Very few murders are premeditate, and even less by people who believe they actually run the risk of getting caught.

Studies in Texas, with its high rate of execution, have shown that captial punishment has no higher value as a deterrent over traditional sentencing.

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

How on earth can offer proof of that?

What I can do cite the US a western country with capital punishment and high crime and murder rate.

You've offered no evidence that harsher sentences are a deterent for criminals.

I've offered plenty of evidence that harsher sentences aren't a deterent for criminals.

Instead of demanding I leap through ever more implausible and absurd hoops, how about you make a case, citing evidence, that capital punishment is a deterent.

So essentially you want me to do what you can't/won't......:rolleyes:

That's a great response, really put me in my box.

Might check out that "14 days" documentary.

Even if you could convince me that capital punishment doesn't act as a detterant, it does mean that some of those found guilty of certain especially heinous crimes are no longer free to perpetrate those crimes in the future, and you can't argue with that.

MrPudding

AngryBadger wrote:

So essentially you want me to do what you can't/won't......:rolleyes:

That's a great response, really put me in my box.

Might check out that "14 days" documentary.

Even if you could convince me that capital punishment doesn't act as a detterant, it does mean that some of those found guilty of certain especially heinous crimes are no longer free to perpetrate those crimes in the future, and you can't argue with that.

The fact that people are still being sentenced to death shows that it is not working as a deterrent. If it was working then no one would be sentenced.

Dudess forgot the best part of the 14 Days In May documentary. Two weeks after the guy was put to death a woman came forward and was able to prove conclusively that he was not guilty. She had tried to do this during the investigation but was either told to go away or wasn't called back. I can't remember the details but it was a long time ago when I watched it.

Angry Badger, you seem to be missing the point of Freelancers post. I do not know if this is intentional or not. You are say that capital punishment works a a deterrent. Freelancer has pointed out that in countries where it is used crime rates continue to rise. Any reasonable person would see this as an indication that it's value a deterrent is at best limited.

He has shown that the crimes rates are continuing to rise and therefore backed up his position. You on the other hand have repeatedly refused to do the same. Can you provide any evidence to support your firm belief that the threat of being put to death acts as a deterrent?

MrP

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

So essentially you want me to do what you can't/won't......:rolleyes:

I'm sorry what?

You demanded that I;

angrybadger wrote:

Why don't you offer me some plausible alternative, or solid proof that if we removed capital punishment the world over crime levels wouldn't go up.

The world over? I mean do you have any idea how asisine a demand or suggestion that is? Like for example if we remove capital punishment in a corrupt dictatorship like Uzbekistan crime levels in cork won't go up?

You've not offered a single shred of proof that capital punishment is a deterrent, while I have offered plenty of proof that it is not. Meanwhile you're reduced to increasingly inane tactics in your attempts to refuse to acknowledge that.

That's a great response, really put me in my box.

I've proven with two countries the US and Saudi Arabia two countries with capital punishment and high violent crime and murder rates, clearly demonstrating capital punishment isn't a deterrent.

You're not even attempted to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent.

You claim that capital punishment will deter crime, why don't you show me a place were capital punishment was introduced and following this there was a drop in violent crime.

Even if you could convince me that capital punishment doesn't act as a detterant, it does mean that some of those found guilty of certain especially heinous crimes are no longer free to perpetrate those crimes in the future, and you can't argue with that.

Well yes on two points.

1) The criminal justice system is fallible, mistakes are made. If a miscarriage of justice is discovered after execution there is no remedy. How many innocent men are you comfortable executing?

2) Life can mean life. Moveover as Wicknight pointed out 90% of murders are crimes of passion, these aren't serial killers these are one off murders. Do you really think everyone convicted of murder aged thirty is going to go out 30 years later and commit another murder?

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

If you don't think that the fact that there is an illegal industry worth billion inside the US economy you need to get your head sorted. .

Explain please. I think you missed a word or two, so I can't get what you are trying to say

Freelancer wrote:

link please..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html

Freelancer wrote:

Link please..

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=28&did=176

This situation is still being debated.

Freelancer wrote:

And what difference does it make when you prove it, he was still sentenced to death when his IQ was that of a minor..

As was state law which made no exception, which led predictably to a legal challenge. Its how the system operates

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Explain please. I think you missed a word or two, so I can't get what you are trying to say

:rolleyes:

You made some claim about cannibis growth not being a big deal (we'll add US crop exports, to gay relations, and sexual psychology to your growing list of expertise) I pointed out that the cannabis growth industry is worth $25 billion dollars in the US at time when penalties for doing such are increasingly stiffening, suggesting that your claim that harsher penalties reduce crime simply isn't true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html

Well done. Again what does this pedantic quibbling have to do with the point that the US executes more people than any other western country yet still has a massive and growing, prison population, and a high crime and murder rate. Aside from pedantic quibbling.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=28&did=176

This situation is still being debated.

So I was right in saying it in the first place grand so.

As was state law which made no exception, which led predictably to a legal challenge. Its how the system operates

:rolleyes:

Seriously firespinner what do you think all this tedious nitpicking brings to the table?

ali-queenb

death penalty is wrong no matter you do not really need to look at all the statistics to see that..!!!!! i just cant get why people cant get that !!!!!!a life is a life if you value life so much as you must with the victim and as you say you do, do u not value the person who did the crime as much life as the other...we are having the same debate in english some rtrd suggstions like what if they do it again????come on!!!

patzer117

Ok, Devil's Advocate approach here, what's wrong with beating the ****e out of convicted criminals and giving them a shorter sentence? It may not rehabilitate them or deter crime - but then as people have pointed out neither does prison. What's the matter with simply punishing people extremely harshly?

Patzer117

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/13/moussaoui.trial.ap/index.html

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (AP) -- An angry federal judge considered Monday whether to dismiss the government's death penalty case against confessed al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui after a federal attorney coached witnesses in violation of her rules.

The defendant had already pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al Qaeda to hijack planes and to other crimes, and will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in prison.

Like I said before the moral issue about the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is irrelevant until other issues are sorted first. This case is a high profile one, very political and when you re-read the article it's scary. Even those who support capital punishment would have to agree that it should only be used in cases where the death penalty actually applies.

Brinkema warned the government at that point that it was treading on shaky legal ground because she knew of no case where a failure to act resulted in a death penalty as a matter of law.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Ok, Devil's Advocate approach here, what's wrong with beating the ****e out of convicted criminals and giving them a shorter sentence? It may not rehabilitate them or deter crime - but then as people have pointed out neither does prison. What's the matter with simply punishing people extremely harshly?

Patzer117

Um what? Seriously? What on earth is accomplished by this? What possible benefit do you see?

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

Um what? Seriously? What on earth is accomplished by this? What possible benefit do you see?

No, just as Devil's advocate. What's the benefit of prison? It's just a punishment too right? This is shorter and they don't learn new skills in prison and become more adept at criminality. This get's them back out into the open to lead a proper life after they have been rehabilitated safe in the knowledge that they've paid their dues for commiting a crime. Basically as an alternative to prison, what's the problem?

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

No, just as Devil's advocate. What's the benefit of prison? It's just a punishment too right? This is shorter and they don't learn new skills in prison and become more adept at criminality. This get's them back out into the open to lead a proper life after they have been rehabilitated safe in the knowledge that they've paid their dues for commiting a crime. Basically as an alternative to prison, what's the problem?

I swear I just dislocated my jaw, its on the floor. Prison isn't just supposed to be about punishment, this isn't Victorian England. Prisoners are supposed to learn new skills and we're supposed to make at least an attempt at rehablitation.

All you're suggesting is we now have a bunch of people who are now a burden on the health service, who've gained nothing except a new reason to hate the state.

If you're going to have the pretense of "playing devils adovcate" at least try and come up with a point of view which is grounded in reality.

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

Prison isn't just supposed to be about punishment, this isn't Victorian England. Prisoners are supposed to learn new skills and we're supposed to make at least an attempt at rehablitation.

If you're going to have the pretense of "playing devils adovcate" at least try and come up with a point of view which is grounded in reality.

Prison is all about punishment, otherwise we wouldn't have long prison sentences. People are there to be punished not to be rehabilitated, otherwise why have life sentences, or why not let people off if you feel they won't do it again - if they've learned from their mistake, with the proviso they see a shrink every week or something?

What is the problem with punishing someone and trying to rehabilitate them at the same time? Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Instead of a long prison term use this. They aren't going to hate the system any more than they do just because they got a few beatings - many are probably getting beaten or raped in prison anyway

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Prison is all about punishment, otherwise we wouldn't have long prison sentences.

Different degrees of crime determine different degrees of punishment. Punishment should be a significant aspect of prison it should not seen as the be all and end all?

People are there to be punished not to be rehabilitated, otherwise why have life sentences, or why not let people off if you feel they won't do it again - if they've learned from their mistake, with the proviso they see a shrink every week or something?

Are you just taking the piss now?

What is the problem with punishing someone and trying to rehabilitate them at the same time? Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive.

Which is why we have prison to punish and rehabilitate them

Instead of a long prison term use this. They aren't going to hate the system any more than they do just because they got a few beatings - many are probably getting beaten or raped in prison anyway

You are just taking the piss, arent you?

So what you suggest is we beat the crap out of someone, trust them not to reoffend, and then send them to a shrink?

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

Different degrees of crime determine different degrees of punishment. Punishment should be a significant aspect of prison it should not seen as the be all and end all?




Which is why we have prison to punish and rehabilitate them



You are just taking the piss, arent you?

So what you suggest is we beat the crap out of someone, trust them not to reoffend, and then send them to a shrink?

Exactly, bit like prison today
I just like to see you wound up freelancer

CerebralCortex

patzer117 wrote:

Prison is all about punishment, otherwise we wouldn't have long prison sentences. People are there to be punished not to be rehabilitated, otherwise why have life sentences, or why not let people off if you feel they won't do it again - if they've learned from their mistake, with the proviso they see a shrink every week or something?

What is the problem with punishing someone and trying to rehabilitate them at the same time? Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Instead of a long prison term use this. They aren't going to hate the system any more than they do just because they got a few beatings - many are probably getting beaten or raped in prison anyway

You are joking right or your fantasising or something. People who commit crimes are people who failed when it came to fitting into society (God knows it isn't that hard to do). People who are in prison need help probably more than anyone else and a beating never served me.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

You made some claim about cannibis growth not being a big deal (we'll add US crop exports, to gay relations, and sexual psychology to your growing list of expertise) I pointed out that the cannabis growth industry is worth $25 billion dollars in the US at time when penalties for doing such are increasingly stiffening, suggesting that your claim that harsher penalties reduce crime simply isn't true.

My point was that since the US does not specialise in cash crops, made your point worthless. According to this it is only the fourth largest cash crophttp://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444

Freelancer wrote:

Well done. Again what does this pedantic quibbling have to do with the point that the US executes more people than any other western country yet still has a massive and growing, prison population, and a high crime and murder rate. Aside from pedantic quibbling.

It proves you were using a falsehood

Freelancer wrote:

So I was right in saying it in the first place grand so.

No. Read it again.

Freelancer wrote:

Seriously firespinner what do you think all this tedious nitpicking brings to the table?

It think it undermines the distortions and lies that you use to supplement your point. I do not follow the death penalty issue closely, yet I knew that you claims were incorrect and inflammatory such as your claims that, minors were being executed.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

My point was that since the US does not specialise in cash crops, made your point worthless. According to this it is only the fourth largest cash crophttp://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444

Again semantic quibbling, you don't face up to life imprisonment for growing the other three crops. The fact that cannabis is such a massive industry despite such serious penalties for it's growth, proves severe sentences aren't a deterent.

It proves you were using a falsehood

Answer this very carefully Firespinner, are you calling be a liar? Are you suggesting I was aware that this was untrue when I first said it?

No. Read it again.

Whatever.

It think it undermines the distortions and lies that you use to supplement your point. I do not follow the death penalty issue closely, yet I knew that you claims were incorrect and inflammatory such as your claims that, minors were being executed.

Minors were being executed. Thats changed.

The overall thrust of my point still stands despite your pedantry. The US is western country with the death penalty, and severe penatlies and sentences, depsite this the murder and crime rate is high and it's prison population growing, therefore claims that the death penalty and severe sentences act as a deterent are untrue.

bonkey

Freelancer wrote:

Minors were being executed. Thats changed.

Maybe I'm wrong but the way I understand it minors were not being executed.

Adults were being executed for crimes committed whilst minors.

The US is western country with the death penalty, and severe penatlies and sentences, depsite this the murder and crime rate is high and it's prison population growing, therefore claims that the death penalty and severe sentences act as a deterent are untrue.

It doesn't necessarily follow that a high incidence of crime indicates that the deterrance factor doesn't exist. If it did, one could equally argue that because crime rates in (say) Canada are lower than in the US, it "proves" that in actual fact the death-penalty acts as an incentive to commit crime.

Or one could cherry-pick other nations, and compare the crime rates in a nation like Japan (which has the death penalty) to some nation without it with a significantly worse crime rate.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing, especially when one takes individual nations in isolation to exaggerate the correlation.

However, one has to look at the issue from the correct perspective. The burden of proof should be on the side supporting an approach, not the side opposing it. Quoting from Amnesty:

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.

From this, one can also conclude (safely) that there is no evidence that the replacement of the death penalty with an alternate strategy (life imprisonment, for example) would lead to an increase in crime rates.

Indeed, given that numerous countries have abolished the death penalty over the last 20-30 years, it can safely be argued that the absence of such evidence suggests the opposite. There is evidence that abolishing the death penalty does not lead to an increase, or there would be the convincing evidence thats lacking to support the deterrant argument.

jc

bonkey

patzer117 wrote:

Basically as an alternative to prison, what's the problem?

"He who fights with monsters ..." and all that.