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.
Ted Bundy did not deserve to be able to put himself out of his misery.
Now, I would love to see executions sped up and less money spent on these criminals, but on the other hand, I see the issue with jail/prison. A low-key criminal comes out hardened and usually ends up in a cycle because of their past habits. Prisons should become rehabilitation/reform centers just like they were originally intended to do - not punishment centers that put people through hell and spit out demons when they're done paying their dues.
Of course. Everyone owns his/her own life. Therefore, he/she has the right to end end whenever he/she chooses. If a person has murdered others, how does forcing the suicidal perpetrator to continue living accomplish anything? Our "justice system" ultimately dispenses little justice, unfortunately. It's the best system we have, but it's not that great. Locking criminals up for years and year with other violent criminals doesn't rehabilitate or teach them anything. It certainly doesn't bring the murdered person back, which of course is an impossibility. So why not allow the person to end his/her own life? That might give the victims' families comfort, if in some small way.
So your "logic" dictates what exactly, the murderer who has been free the entire time just get some small sentence?
In the circumstance I was referring to, yes. That was my point. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws do not account for circumstance when they absolutely should. Let's look at two different cases of murder that both happened 15 years in the past. One if the example I already gave, where the guy turned his life around after leaving a gang; the other brutally killed his wife and ran away and his only to be found 15 years later. These are two very unique cases, yet under mandatory minimum sentencing laws (which effectively undermine the power of a judge), they would be treated exactly the same. Nothing about that seems intelligent to me and I want a smart justice system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
As to trying to compare America with other small countries who have the same culture/race/religion etc. will never be an accurate way to think it will work over here.
`
Maybe, but our own system doesn't even work in our country. There's is getting results, so even if their exact system wouldn't work here, obviously something about what they're doing is fundamentally superior to our system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
I am admittedly very much a hawk when it comes to law breakers, and prison.
Prison should be a deterrent. Make it mean and nasty. Let people understand that if you go into prison, you will be kept in a cell, no amenities outside of a sink and a toilet, and you will likely die in there from going crazy, untreated illness, or disease.
Prisons have historically been mean and nasty. Our prisons are still god awful, but less so than they were 50 years ago and crime is down. Prisons in Scandinavian countries are almost luxurious compared to the 8x6 box we put our people in, and their crime rate is even lower.
So while using freedom math, it makes sense to say nasty prisons work as a deterrent, there isn't a real life example that even remotely prove this thought. Most example actually contradict it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Bear
Perhaps...just maybe...if these knuckleheads understand that they will rot/die in jail it MIGHT be a deterrent to criminal behavior. If going to jail means exercise yards, television, healthcare, free meals, "rehabilitation", and "education" it becomes a "so what" when it comes to fearing the experience.
Health care? Free meals?
Wow... you know, I've been looking for a post that perfectly illustrates why this country can't possibly be considered a Christian country, and bingo! Here it is.
We can't prohibit health care or food from prisoners. Not only is that clearly unethical by basically any person who's understanding of moral philosophy doesn't stem from the thought process of 18th century Saudi Arabia, but it's unconstitutional. The US constitution specifically forbids cruel and unusual punishment; not feeding people or letting a gall stone kill them is 100% cruel and unusual. You immediately lose any moral high ground you thought you had when you suggest mistreating people is ever ok.
Also, rehabilitation is pretty much essential. Since we can't reasonably justify putting every person who commits a crime in their forever, they eventually do get out and if they aren't rehabilitated and ready to live in society, how well do you think that's going to go?
Yes, they should be allowed to commit suicide. I'd even go for a one-time payment to the family and/or victim's family (to be determined in some mutually agreeable way).
Given the expense of a life sentence (not just monetary), it should be an option especially if the convict:
*freely admits his/her guilt
*wants to "opt out" of life
It's not like anyone is really rehabilitated in prison. Obviously, folks that have a questionable conviction, are still fighting the sentence, etc., would not be eligible. Life in prison is one of the most cruel punishments possible.
Should prisoners who receive life sentences without parole be given access to some sort of drug like the one Brittany Maynard took to end her own life? Is life in prison actually worse than the death penatly itself? It seems very expensive to take care of prisoners and if they want to commit suicide, why shouldnt we let them and possibly even assist in the process? I am all for it and think that people with life sentences should be allowed and even encouraged to off themselves whenever they please. It would help bring costs and overcrowding down.
This was brought to light by Aaron Hernandez recently being placed on suicide watch after being convicted and sentenced without parole. I find it absurd that a prisoner would be placed on suicide watch. Why should we prevent prisoners from committing suicide?
No. Quite a few families that have lost families to crime want the offender to rot in prison rather than get a way out of the misery of a life sentence.
No. Quite a few families that have lost families to crime want the offender to rot in prison rather than get a way out of the misery of a life sentence.
Do you not know why we have courts? To avoid giving the victims what they want. This is specifically why. It may sound cruel to the victim, but ultimately, it's about being humane. This is why vigilante justice is illegal. The victims don't get to decide punishments because too often the punishment they, or their family in some cases, would prescribe would be inhumane and vile. If someone commits a crime against a love one, it's illegal for you to find them and kill them because that is not how a just society should work. Instead, we leave the sentencing and application of punishments up to a judge who ONLY is supposed to observe the facts. Or that's how it should be, but we've also given some of that power to congress, which was a foolish move and a slap in the face to true justice. As we can easily see, congress is not made up of people who look at facts; they can easily be coerced into agreeing with just about any overly emotional, reactionary law that an activist can send their way.
Justice is not about getting revenge. Revenge is supposed to feel good; justice isn't. Justice stops at what is fair; the minimum amount of what should be done. Revenge is unleashing rage; it's not concerned with what's fair. Many speak of what the criminal 'deserves' in cases of revenge, as if that makes it ok, and somehow killing a killer is not ironic to them, but to the thinking mind it should be. Justice does not ask what the victim wants; it looks at what the victim needs. Rotting in prison helps no one; it costs tax payers money, and if they are released, as plenty of prisoners eventually are, they are not significantly less likely to reoffend if proper rehabilitation wasn't pursued.
Revenge mentality will not generate productive results.
Not sure if I agree with how you got to that conclusion, but I agree with the conclusion.
Free will aside, punishment should always be humane. If the system that is supposed to enact justice is cruel and vile, then it's not just.
And to the people talking about how these people deserve to rot... you are not good people. You are no better than the people in prison. Moral people do not want revenge, they want justice. Justice should not be making people suffer because it feels good.
There's no scientific basis for the existence of free will and that is the reason why I arrived at my conclusion.
If I believed in free will and that people had meaningful control over the choices that they made, I'd probably want the perpetrator of serious crimes to suffer for a while. Although being compassionate, that wouldn't necessarily preclude the option of assisted suicide after a certain amount of time had elapsed (maybe 5 years, maybe 10).
This notion of punishment is way too deeply rooted in the American(read uninformed) mind. A society that produces graduates who have no idea of basic finance/nutrition/life skills, and routinely compete with the third world for jobs, shouldn't be so confident in such a system.
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.
