Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) If they escape... Hollywood prisons aren't all that accurate. The number of prison escapes has been dropping dramatically since 1994. In fact, in 1994, it was less that half of 1% of all prisoners escaping. And it's true, there are a few thousand a year, but it's not the murderers escaping. It's just walk outs from community corrections or minimum security prisons, and they're pretty much always recovered. It's rare for a genuinely dangerous criminal to actually escape. And I actually oppose both the death penalty and life without parole. As you said, they won't change if they don't even have a chance of one day leaving, so let's give them that chance, even if it's not a real one.
2) ... We protect individual liberty? Maybe at one point, but we're not much different that other western nations in terms of individual liberty. Maybe you're using Fox math, which is X amount of guns=X among of freedom, but if you pay attention, you'll realize that the government has pretty much got a grip on your life. And you want to let them have the authority to kill. And by the way, what others are doing is sometimes important. Most places in Europe had abolished slavery quite sometimes before we did. Their rationale was good and their was a strong moral argument favoring that approach. The reactionaries invented a reason why that's not the case. If it seems familiar, it's because that's what happens now all the time.
3) I've never met a smart person who thinks revenge is more important than justice. If killing is wrong, killing should always be wrong. Killing a killer because they deserve it is unreasonable. How do we define deserve it? A lot of people are absolutely terrible people, but if someone kills them, even if they absolutely deserved it, they're still charged with murder then executed because they deserve it. See how insane that sounds? Imagine an outside perspective who wasn't from this sorry excuse for a first world country.
Also, it's not a deterrent. This question is something I've asked a few times now, and of course, death penalty supporters run off when a question that they can't use 'but it's JUSTIZE" on shows up, but states with the death penalty have higher rates of violent crimes than states without. That's not what a deterrent is. If someone can explain how the death penalty is a deterrent, despite the numbers saying the exact opposite, I'd love to know.
I would say no, because I think that death is preferable to a life sentence in a supermax prison. I'm not even sure if death is worse than a life sentence in a normal prison. It's not like anyone really knows what happens when someone dies so for all we know death could be amazing and continuing to live is the real punishment.
The way things are set up now, the best that a released criminal can do in this society is menial labor or falling back into crime after their parole has ended. They're probably going to end up at the very bottom of society with absolutely no hopes of ever rising above that, simply because of their record. If university graduates without criminal records are working at Starbucks, I can only imagine what kind of job prospects convicted murderers or pedophiles are facing.
So really, their lives are pretty much over the moment they're convicted. For someone notorious such as the Boston Bomber, it would be virtually impossible to ever re-enter society or live a meaningful life of any kind. Living in a cell with a weekly shower and a small black and white TV that only show religious programming isn't living.
My support for the death penalty isn't so much about playing God with people's lives as it is being practical about these things.
Of course, I don't think we should be too liberal about the people we sentence to death.
I would say no, because I think that death is preferable to a life sentence in a supermax prison. I'm not even sure if death is worse than a life sentence in a normal prison. It's not like anyone really knows what happens when someone dies so for all we know death could be amazing and continuing to live is the real punishment.
The way things are set up now, the best that a released criminal can do in this society is menial labor, falling back into crime, or escaping to some other country, so their lives are pretty much over the moment they're convicted. For someone notorious such as the Boston Bomber, it would be virtually impossible to ever re-enter society or live a meaningful life of any kind. It's not so much about playing God with people's lives as it is being practical about these things.
Of course, I don't think we should be too liberal about the people we sentence to death.
Well you are correct about the problems with reentry, but do we kill people because they can't get a job when they are released? If so, then I guess we need to kill all 2.2 million who are currently incarcerated
Well you are correct about the problems with reentry, but do we kill people because they can't get a job when they are released? If so, then I guess we need to kill all 2.2 million who are currently incarcerated
I was being a little bit facetious there, actually... it would be preferable to change the stigma, of course.
But for someone with no chance of release, I'm not sure how death would be worse.
I was being a little bit facetious there, actually... it would be preferable to change the stigma, of course.
But for someone with no chance of release, I'm not sure how death would be worse.
Agreed. Ex-convicts who are released should be given a second chance. If we assume they'll reoffend, it makes them far more likely to do so. Obviously, Americans have a serious problem: little trust in the prison system and a love for putting people in it.
Obviously, someone fresh out of prison is 'starting over,' meaning that first job out isn't going to be luxurious (for most of them) but prison is meant to correct bad behavior and it's my belief that upon release, they have earned some of our trust back; the rest they'll earn by being honest people from that point on.
I think long prison sentences are cruel and inhumane, and I actually agree are worse than death which is why I think both should be illegal, but under the current system I support a prisoner's right to euthanize themselves should they choose that path. But I think a better solution would be to adopt the Scandinavian sentencing policy. Adopt a max sentence possible (~20 years) but for more serious crimes (murder, rape, etc) time can be added at the end of the sentence if they are still deemed unfit to reenter society. This works as an incentive. A murder who is in for life isn't going to be motivated to stop murdering. If they at least have the chance, many will put the effort in.
However, I feel the rehabilitation evaluation at the end of the sentence should be done without court authority. Prison officials and psychologists (experts, if you will) are the only people who can make that decision. Lawyers and judges should not be involved at that point.
I also think (if life sentences are to continue) that it should be illegal to prohibit the right to request parole. They should at least have the chance to get it, even if upon evaluation, they decide not to give it.
If they at least have the chance, many will put the effort in.
I completely agree.
It's the hopelessness that pushes people into crime. The US prison system is not much more than barbaric vindictiveness and exploitation.
At the same time, I would never rule out the death penalty completely. I don't think it's an effective deterrent or a just punishment, but I do think it's appropriate in some cases and I don't consider it inhumane either. There is no reason to spend time and money trying to rehabilitate someone like Anders Breivik, for example.
It's the hopelessness that pushes people into crime. The US prison system is not much more than barbaric vindictiveness and exploitation.
At the same time, I would never rule out the death penalty completely. I don't think it's an effective deterrent or a just punishment, but I do think it's appropriate in some cases and I don't consider it inhumane either. There is no reason to spend time and money trying to rehabilitate someone like Anders Breivik, for example.
Thus far (or as far as I can remember; I'm not sifting through 11 pages of this to see if I'm wrong), this is the only pro-death penalty argument that I can say I've had much respect for. Mostly because I think you're looking at the perspective of more than just 'an eye for an eye.'
If I were to compromise on the death penalty, it would only be for serial killers, mass, murderers, and terrorist (though it's my understanding that the term terrorist is kind of vague; it would need to be cleared up a bit) and not even necessarily for all of them. People like Anders Breivik or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev probably do hold their views too deeply to be rehabilitated (though Tsarnaev may not be a totally lost cause; it's hard to get unbiased information on him frankly), but I'm still not sold that I want the state to have that sort of authority.
Agreed. Ex-convicts who are released should be given a second chance. If we assume they'll reoffend, it makes them far more likely to do so. Obviously, Americans have a serious problem: little trust in the prison system and a love for putting people in it.
Obviously, someone fresh out of prison is 'starting over,' meaning that first job out isn't going to be luxurious (for most of them) but prison is meant to correct bad behavior and it's my belief that upon release, they have earned some of our trust back; the rest they'll earn by being honest people from that point on.
I think long prison sentences are cruel and inhumane, and I actually agree are worse than death which is why I think both should be illegal, but under the current system I support a prisoner's right to euthanize themselves should they choose that path. But I think a better solution would be to adopt the Scandinavian sentencing policy. Adopt a max sentence possible (~20 years) but for more serious crimes (murder, rape, etc) time can be added at the end of the sentence if they are still deemed unfit to reenter society. This works as an incentive. A murder who is in for life isn't going to be motivated to stop murdering. If they at least have the chance, many will put the effort in.
However, I feel the rehabilitation evaluation at the end of the sentence should be done without court authority. Prison officials and psychologists (experts, if you will) are the only people who can make that decision. Lawyers and judges should not be involved at that point.
I also think (if life sentences are to continue) that it should be illegal to prohibit the right to request parole. They should at least have the chance to get it, even if upon evaluation, they decide not to give it.
That is probably one of the most articulate and well thought out responses that I have read on CD. I agree with everything that you said, the only thing I would add is that the barriers to re-entry are formidable, former inmates can't find jobs and a large number of apartments participate in what is called "crime free multi-housing" which means felons need not apply. And rather than supervision after release being helpful it's turned into a nightmare for most ex felons.
in California, State parole had always been responsible for supervising offenders upon release for a period of 3-5 years but parole agents were arresting so many people for very minor rule violations that recidivism climbed to over 70% and prisons which were already crowded were busting at the seams due to the 50,000 or so parolees serving time for violations.
AB109 went into effect in California in 2011. The goal was to shift post release supervision from state parole to local probation departments and focus on job training, housing and mental health counseling, but the state allowed each county to spend the money any way they wanted and a number of them decided the answer was to build bigger jails and send out swat teams to do "compliance checks" of all people on supervision whether they were suspected of wrongdoing or not. The problem is that if you are renting an apartment, after 5 -7 cops, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas jump out of a van with AK47's your landlord will find some reason to evict you whether you got arrested or not.
Bottom line is, it's about money, parole locked up people on trivial violations because it was job security, larger numbers of violators gave them an opportunity to lobby for more agents to be hired, which would in turn create new promotional opportunities. Local agencies know a cash cow when they see one too and they use the same tactic, repeatedly arrest offenders for minor infractions as a way to justify hiring more cops and building more jails. Unfortunately until the public demands that this change, there is no reason for a law enforcement agency to act against it's own self interests.
In case you aren't from California, it's important to understand that probation or parole is not an 'early release' as it is in some states, but rather a period of supervision that begins AFTER you serve all of your time
That is probably one of the most articulate and well thought out responses that I have read on CD. I agree with everything that you said, the only thing I would add is that the barriers to re-entry are formidable, former inmates can't find jobs and a large number of apartments participate in what is called "crime free multi-housing" which means felons need not apply. And rather than supervision after release being helpful it's turned into a nightmare for most ex felons.
in California, State parole had always been responsible for supervising offenders upon release for a period of 3-5 years but parole agents were arresting so many people for very minor rule violations that recidivism climbed to over 70% and prisons which were already crowded were busting at the seams due to the 50,000 or so parolees serving time for violations.
AB109 went into effect in California in 2011. The goal was to shift post release supervision from state parole to local probation departments and focus on job training, housing and mental health counseling, but the state allowed each county to spend the money any way they wanted and a number of them decided the answer was to build bigger jails and send out swat teams to do "compliance checks" of all people on supervision whether they were suspected of wrongdoing or not. The problem is that if you are renting an apartment, after 5 -7 cops, dressed in black and wearing balaclavas jump out of a van with AK47's your landlord will find some reason to evict you whether you got arrested or not.
Bottom line is, it's about money, parole locked up people on trivial violations because it was job security, larger numbers of violators gave them an opportunity to lobby for more agents to be hired, which would in turn create new promotional opportunities. Local agencies know a cash cow when they see one too and they use the same tactic, repeatedly arrest offenders for minor infractions as a way to justify hiring more cops and building more jails. Unfortunately until the public demands that this change, there is no reason for a law enforcement agency to act against it's own self interests.
In case you aren't from California, it's important to understand that probation or parole is not an 'early release' as it is in some states, but rather a period of supervision that begins AFTER you serve all of your time
Parole is defiantly not talked about when addressing recidivism. I even forget to factor it in most of the time. But you're absolutely correct, parole violations do contribute to recidivism. As to how much, I do not know, but I'm sure it's a substantial amount.
I find it bizarre that parole can even last more than 5 years. Same with probation. Presumably, probation is reserved for people who don't pose a threat to others, so the crime would in theory be less sever than an offense that warrants prison time. And really, if someone needs more than 5 years monitoring after being released from prison, I'm not so sure the system actually think they're ready.
Minor parole offenses shouldn't result in re-incarceration either. Let's look at alcohol prohibition: certainly someone recently released from prison shouldn't not be spending their time getting drunk. However, I think the restrictions of alcohol use can lighten up with each progressive year, in a 5 year sentence. A few violation can result in an increase in parole time, but need to result in prison unless it becomes habitual violation. For example, I'd say in the first year, possession of alcohol and being intoxicated at all would be a violation of parole, punishment ranging based on quantity of alcohol illegal owned and how intoxicated an individual is. But by the final year, public intoxication above legal limit is all that is effected, resulting in the usual punishment that carries and parole extension.
Parole should not be seen as punishment. It should be a re-entry program, that slowly lifts the restrictions on an individual, allowing them to ease into personal responsibility.
If these 2 had been properly killed using legitimate principles of vengeance, they would not be out and about ready to kill again. Again, capital punishment must continue so that monsters like these cannot repeat offend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
