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.
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?
I'll suggest that life sentences, and the mere notion of stuffing people into a 6x8 room for decades at a time, is 'cruel and unusual'. I'll put forth a different model, and since long term prison sentences (and prisons themselves) are a rather new innovation, there's really no long history of this kind of thing.
First off, mostly empty the prisons. Crimes can be split into several cohorts:
. Things that shouldn't be illegal (drug law is rife with this kind of thing). No crime.
. Things that result in a fine (most financial crime for one thing, making people poor is a pretty appropriate concept in a lot of cases)
. Corporal punishment (caning is a brilliant solution for some offenses).
. Hanging or firing squad. One conviction, one appeal, sayonara if guilty. Yes, some innocent people get killed.
What you might be left with is a small number of crimes that fall between the cracks, and with a much much smaller prison population, the increased guard to prisoner ratio would result in less violence and a more controlled situation. This is not intended for long term sentences.
Of course, a lot of the public views prison rape as a perfectly acceptable punishment for bad people, so there's not much to be done about the perversity of the American public.
I suggest that prison needs to be re-thought. I have often wondered how things might be different if incarcerated people were locked into a 10x15 room with a nice mattress, a tv with the full cable package, internet and a computer, a total gym, and otherwise essentially isolated. maybe encourage to use the and internet to connect to support groups.
being alone might drive people insane, but with connection such as I have described, perhaps that would counteract.
I'll suggest that life sentences, and the mere notion of stuffing people into a 6x8 room for decades at a time, is 'cruel and unusual'. I'll put forth a different model, and since long term prison sentences (and prisons themselves) are a rather new innovation, there's really no long history of this kind of thing.
First off, mostly empty the prisons. Crimes can be split into several cohorts:
. Things that shouldn't be illegal (drug law is rife with this kind of thing). No crime.
. Things that result in a fine (most financial crime for one thing, making people poor is a pretty appropriate concept in a lot of cases)
. Corporal punishment (caning is a brilliant solution for some offenses).
. Hanging or firing squad. One conviction, one appeal, sayonara if guilty. Yes, some innocent people get killed.
What you might be left with is a small number of crimes that fall between the cracks, and with a much much smaller prison population, the increased guard to prisoner ratio would result in less violence and a more controlled situation. This is not intended for long term sentences.
Of course, a lot of the public views prison rape as a perfectly acceptable punishment for bad people, so there's not much to be done about the perversity of the American public.
that sounded good until I got to this "Hanging or firing squad. One conviction, one appeal, sayonara if guilty. Yes, some innocent people get killed." Check out the number of overturned convictions due to the work of the Innocence Project and come back and tell me that it's ok if some innocent people get killed: The Cases: DNA Exoneree Profiles
Sure. If they want to commit suicide, I say let them. Just make sure there is a sufficient paper trail that proves it was of the prisoner's own choosing and the families can't file any kind of lawsuit over it. I tend to agree that being kept in a cell is cruel, and in many cases completely ineffective.
Sure. If they want to commit suicide, I say let them. Just make sure there is a sufficient paper trail that proves it was of the prisoner's own choosing and the families can't file any kind of lawsuit over it. I tend to agree that being kept in a cell is cruel, and in many cases completely ineffective.
So we should let the criminals wander loose among the rest of us? I thought it was the business of government to protect the majority of citizens.
that sounded good until I got to this "Hanging or firing squad. One conviction, one appeal, sayonara if guilty. Yes, some innocent people get killed." Check out the number of overturned convictions due to the work of the Innocence Project and come back and tell me that it's ok if some innocent people get killed: The Cases: DNA Exoneree Profiles
All your are arguing then is the burden of proof on a death sentence. Let's say it is set somewhat higher than now. I'd say that a single innocent person getting killed is insufficient reason to get rid of death penalties.
Prisons have quite a few innocent people in them at all levels and I think that keeping someone in a small box (smaller than a small bedroom) for 23 out of 24 hours a day for decades is an absolutely perverted idea. Modern people are very peculiar in what they view as acceptable public policy.
So we should let the criminals wander loose among the rest of us? I thought it was the business of government to protect the majority of citizens.
If mere protection is what you are after, rather than any kind of justice, it would be enough to incarcerate all males between 16 and 35 or so. The remaining majority would be safer.
Sure. If they want to commit suicide, I say let them. Just make sure there is a sufficient paper trail that proves it was of the prisoner's own choosing and the families can't file any kind of lawsuit over it. I tend to agree that being kept in a cell is cruel, and in many cases completely ineffective.
It would reduce the overcrowding in prisons. One reason the recidivism rate is high because when prisoners spend years being locked up, they develop a institution mentality similar to PTSD that makes it difficult for them to function in free society.
If a prisoner don't have any outside support from family and friends keeping in touch, it can bring on depression and feelings of lonliness
Seems rather ironic to propose that convicts in prison be given a legal right that non-convicts don't have.
Also, given what I've heard about some of the abuses that go on in the prison system, I think that some convicts would be "railroaded" into taking the kill-pill while others, in private for-profit prisons, might be unlawfully discouraged. (And wouldn't that make for an interesting headline: "Corrections Corp guards accused of preventing inmate deaths"?)
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.
