Is common sense starting to prevail in America regarding the death penalty?

[Orogun01]

Small cells. BTW that's a horrible prison setting, anyone can cut someone else throat with impunity because he sharing the room with 20 other guys. Do they really do that in today's prisons?

 

Yes. They just don't have the room for cells for everyone. They have converted gyms and other large spaces into dorms.

 

As was mentioned earlier, the entire system needs an overhaul, the death penalty is a super small problem overall, in terms of how many prisoners are put to death each year. Not that I'm making light of it, I just think that any proper overhaul will naturally render the death penalty obsolete.

Maybe, but that depends on the kind of treatment that it's given in consideration to the overhaul. If it's one of those "they are still human and deserve such treatment" i'm worried that in the end we may end up compromising the effectiveness of prison as a deterrence. Actually I think that it has gone down the drain since some prison conditions are much better than what some people have on the outside.

So if prisons become any nicer how are we going to convince people that we are actually punishing criminals?

[Nepenthe]

So if prisons become any nicer how are we going to convince people that we are actually punishing criminals?

Most people find the concept of being locked up and having their normal personal freedoms restricted quite distressing enough. I'm sure all the people who have served in the military in some capacity can certainly grasp that concept.

 

p.s. The problem with human rights is that they apply to humans.

[Walsingham]

So if prisons become any nicer how are we going to convince people that we are actually punishing criminals?

Most people find the concept of being locked up and having their normal personal freedoms restricted quite distressing enough. I'm sure all the people who have served in the military in some capacity can certainly grasp that concept.

 

p.s. The problem with human rights is that they apply to humans.

 

1. I've said before that I found my time in uniform, even in basic training, remarkably civilised. I may have been treated harshly, but always fairly and with certainly more respect than any commercial or charitable training course I've been on.

 

2. Having known at least two victims of rape (that I know of) I can attest to the way such crimes imprison the victim. For life. Yet the 'tariff' for committing them may be as little as four years. This does not appear to me to deter many of those people who are inclined to commit. I'm not saying rape (which is a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute) should carry a death penalty. I'm simply saying that the argument that incarceration is absolutely awful is unsound.

 

3. In situations where incarceration is appallingly awful, such as in many maximum security prisons, it seems to me that we are applying double standards in the worst way. We accept incarceration because it essentially involves torture. But at the same time the people who most desreve the torture (if such a thing can be deserved) are those least likely to receive it.

 

~~

 

4. Several UK Home Office reports over the last years have described a distinction between career 'predatory' criminals, and what you might call 'ordinary decent criminals', and the disturbed. The overwhelming majority of serious crimes being committed or controlled by the former.

 

If this is the case, then ought we not, as free citizens react to defend ourselves from what are effectively sworn enemies? And if we are to do so then we must not apply the same sanctions to those persons that we do to the latter two groups?

[Nepenthe]

1. I've said before that I found my time in uniform, even in basic training, remarkably civilised. I may have been treated harshly, but always fairly and with certainly more respect than any commercial or charitable training course I've been on.

I'd say my impressions were the opposite. I was never treated harshly (most of them were scared ****less of having a lawyer there), but never fairly or with any respect, apart from the respect you give to somebody who you suspect can tie you into legal loopholes for the rest of your natural life.

 

Clearly your military culture is at an advantage over ours.

[Orogun01]

1. I've said before that I found my time in uniform, even in basic training, remarkably civilised. I may have been treated harshly, but always fairly and with certainly more respect than any commercial or charitable training course I've been on.

I'd say my impressions were the opposite. I was never treated harshly (most of them were scared ****less of having a lawyer there), but never fairly or with any respect, apart from the respect you give to somebody who you suspect can tie you into legal loopholes for the rest of your natural life.

 

Clearly your military culture is at an advantage over ours.

Military as a prison is an institution, the big difference is that you probably won't be stabbed, raped, robbed, or likely to develop a drug addiction in the military. Plus my sting in the military is something I remember to be harsh but ultimately enjoyable; that said I wouldn't do it again.

The comparison really isn't fair since both have very different objectives and populations.

[Thorton_AP]

Actually I think that it has gone down the drain since some prison conditions are much better than what some people have on the outside.

 

Those triple bunk situations in a room with 40 other people aren't exactly awesome. Especially when you have to factor in the guards there that are not exactly buddy buddy with you.

[Nepenthe]

1. I've said before that I found my time in uniform, even in basic training, remarkably civilised. I may have been treated harshly, but always fairly and with certainly more respect than any commercial or charitable training course I've been on.

I'd say my impressions were the opposite. I was never treated harshly (most of them were scared ****less of having a lawyer there), but never fairly or with any respect, apart from the respect you give to somebody who you suspect can tie you into legal loopholes for the rest of your natural life.

 

Clearly your military culture is at an advantage over ours.

Military as a prison is an institution, the big difference is that you probably won't be stabbed, raped, robbed, or likely to develop a drug addiction in the military. Plus my sting in the military is something I remember to be harsh but ultimately enjoyable; that said I wouldn't do it again.

The comparison really isn't fair since both have very different objectives and populations.

The whole point wasn't to equate the two, but to instead point out that people will generally view even a rather "soft" limitation of personal freedoms pretty ****ing opressive.

[Orogun01]

1. I've said before that I found my time in uniform, even in basic training, remarkably civilised. I may have been treated harshly, but always fairly and with certainly more respect than any commercial or charitable training course I've been on.

I'd say my impressions were the opposite. I was never treated harshly (most of them were scared ****less of having a lawyer there), but never fairly or with any respect, apart from the respect you give to somebody who you suspect can tie you into legal loopholes for the rest of your natural life.

 

Clearly your military culture is at an advantage over ours.

Military as a prison is an institution, the big difference is that you probably won't be stabbed, raped, robbed, or likely to develop a drug addiction in the military. Plus my sting in the military is something I remember to be harsh but ultimately enjoyable; that said I wouldn't do it again.

The comparison really isn't fair since both have very different objectives and populations.

The whole point wasn't to equate the two, but to instead point out that people will generally view even a rather "soft" limitation of personal freedoms pretty ****ing opressive.

It shouldn't matter what people think, prison should be punitive within the confines of the law. Otherwise the whole concept fails, specially since most hardcore criminals scorn general viewpoints.

[Humodour]

1. I've said before that I found my time in uniform, even in basic training, remarkably civilised. I may have been treated harshly, but always fairly and with certainly more respect than any commercial or charitable training course I've been on.

I'd say my impressions were the opposite. I was never treated harshly (most of them were scared ****less of having a lawyer there), but never fairly or with any respect, apart from the respect you give to somebody who you suspect can tie you into legal loopholes for the rest of your natural life.

 

Clearly your military culture is at an advantage over ours.

Military as a prison is an institution, the big difference is that you probably won't be stabbed, raped, robbed, or likely to develop a drug addiction in the military. Plus my sting in the military is something I remember to be harsh but ultimately enjoyable; that said I wouldn't do it again.

The comparison really isn't fair since both have very different objectives and populations.

The whole point wasn't to equate the two, but to instead point out that people will generally view even a rather "soft" limitation of personal freedoms pretty ****ing opressive.

It shouldn't matter what people think, prison should be punitive within the confines of the law. Otherwise the whole concept fails, specially since most hardcore criminals scorn general viewpoints.

 

It is saddening that you feel revenge and punishment should trump rehabilitation and humanity. Especially when there's a large body of work to favour the latter as a means of reducing crime.

[Nepenthe]

I'm a lot more saddened by my apparent inability to get my point across to him. /eject thread

[Orogun01]

@Krezack: It's not revenge, I have no ill will to these individuals. Rehabilitation doesn't work, most offenders often become repeat offenders; why you support a failing structure is beyond me? My beef is actually with the people who take the side of the criminals instead of the common public, I'm not for the complete mistreatment of prisoners but the main focus of the penal system should be to protect the society where normal people live.

 

@Nepenthe: It doesn't matter that most people view prison as punishment, for the hardcore criminal it is something of a second home. Some spend most of their life on the inside, they are obviously not frightened or deterred by the prospect of prison.

[Thorton_AP]

Just curious, are you aware of the recidivism rate is for murder?

[Walsingham]

Isn't the problem, as I've already said (not that you have to absorb my every word) there are at least two kinds of lawbreakers, and only one kind of penal system?

[Walsingham]

Case in point: seems utterly solid on evidence, no remorse, nice to know he'll be in high security at a cost that would otherwise pay for support for the kind of women he preyed on.

[Humodour]

Isn't the problem, as I've already said (not that you have to absorb my every word) there are at least two kinds of lawbreakers, and only one kind of penal system?

 

This is an argument I could theoretically see myself being persuaded by. The issue of offenders with no remorse is one which I am not informed enough about or haven't thought enough about and thus currently reserve judgement on.

 

"Rehabilitation doesn't work" from Orogun is unfortunately not such an argument. It comes across as at best simplistic and naive and at worst populist and inhumane.

[Monte Carlo]

Career criminals laugh their heads off at hand-wringing liberals like you. They actually despise you, but make all the right noises when you're in earshot.

 

The simple truth, so simple that supposedly educated people struggle to grasp it, is that when incarcerated the criminal is unable to break into your house and steal your stuff. Amazing, isn't it?

 

If some thieving recidivist wants to make a career out of stealing stuff from others, even if it is because he needs to put junk in his arm, then he should expect to spend a significant amount of time in prison. Screw him. Personally I'm more interested in the victims of the oxygen-thief. The victims are the people the bleeding hearts aren't very interested in, no radical crediblity there.

 

Would it be because most of the hand-wringers are middle-class, self-despising leftists who think property is theft (until they get mugged themselves, of course).

Edited December 22, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[mkreku]

The simple truth, so simple that supposedly educated people struggle to grasp it, is that when incarcerated the criminal is unable to break into your house and steal your stuff. Amazing, isn't it?

I will now ask a very difficult question that you right wing nuts will struggle with (apparently), but here goes: why does he break into your house and steal your stuff?

 

Remove the incentive and he won't. Amazing, isn't it?

[Calax]

Monte, I think most people grasp it but are you seriously suggesting that we initiate life imprisonments for criminals of any kind? Because anybody who's in prison can't perform a crime, and those who've commited seem destined to commit again based on some of your comments, so why let them out? Why not make you pay for their continued survival in a system that is (in all honesty) it's own society. Who knows, maybe we need prison prisons for when the prisons become the majority of the adult population and their children are kept outside where the "good" people exist in fear....

 

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

 

Simply blanket declaring that the recidivism rate just means that people should be locked up more is idiotic to say the least. Sure, he might not be stealin my stuff while in there, but then he might also not be working on a degree to become a member of society once again. Of course it doesn't help that 90% of the time when a guy gets out of prison (real prison, not the county jail after 90 days) they have jack squat and don't even have the resources to support a house and food, much less pick up some schooling or whatever, so they turn around and steal or whatever again because it's the only thing they know.

[Monte Carlo]

The simple truth, so simple that supposedly educated people struggle to grasp it, is that when incarcerated the criminal is unable to break into your house and steal your stuff. Amazing, isn't it?

I will now ask a very difficult question that you right wing nuts will struggle with (apparently), but here goes: why does he break into your house and steal your stuff?

 

Remove the incentive and he won't. Amazing, isn't it?

 

You are clearly a utopian, and therefore a fantasist, which doesn't really help your argument. Go out and give all your stuff away if it makes you feel better.

 

There will always be crime. Sometimes more and sometimes less, remarkably the more criminals you lock up the more acquisitive crime goes down. Unless a third party (i.e. the State) intervenes to deal with those who damage the community they live in then you end up with vigilantism. I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

 

Am I a flinty-hearted SOB who'd lock 'em up and throw away the key? Nope, I think there is a big place for rehabilitation within the criminal justice system. There is also a big place for punishment. Carrot and stick. There's too much carrot and the moment. And criminals know it.

[mkreku]

You are clearly a utopian, and therefore a fantasist, which doesn't really help your argument. Go out and give all your stuff away if it makes you feel better.

 

There will always be crime.

So according to your logic, since there will always be crime, the only way to stop it is to lock everyone up.

 

Would that make you feel better?

 

Wait, was that kindergarten reasoning only supposed to be applied on my arguments? Sorry.

[Monte Carlo]

You are clearly a utopian, and therefore a fantasist, which doesn't really help your argument. Go out and give all your stuff away if it makes you feel better.

 

There will always be crime.

So according to your logic, since there will always be crime, the only way to stop it is to lock everyone up.

 

Would that make you feel better?

 

Wait, was that kindergarten reasoning only supposed to be applied on my arguments? Sorry.

 

Alternatively, you could choose to address the entire post rather than selectively.

[Gorgon]

We could use them to colonize Mars, sort of like what the Brits did with Australia.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Awesome, I completely agree.

[Thorton_AP]

Career criminals laugh their heads off at hand-wringing liberals like you. They actually despise you, but make all the right noises when you're in earshot.

 

The simple truth, so simple that supposedly educated people struggle to grasp it, is that when incarcerated the criminal is unable to break into your house and steal your stuff. Amazing, isn't it?

 

If some thieving recidivist wants to make a career out of stealing stuff from others, even if it is because he needs to put junk in his arm, then he should expect to spend a significant amount of time in prison. Screw him. Personally I'm more interested in the victims of the oxygen-thief. The victims are the people the bleeding hearts aren't very interested in, no radical crediblity there.

 

Would it be because most of the hand-wringers are middle-class, self-despising leftists who think property is theft (until they get mugged themselves, of course).

 

 

/facepalm

 

Stereotypes ftw.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Walsingham]

Simply blanket declaring that the recidivism rate just means that people should be locked up more is idiotic to say the least.

 

Really? I would have said that releasing someone you know is going to commit further crimes is idiocy.

 

The key distinction here is the one I've tried to stress between the chronically stupid, or misfortunate, and the career predator.