The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

---

the problem with such sentiments is that we have created a system that has more concern for procedure than with justice.

I've been arguing all along that the pro-death penalty lobby is more concerned with the severity of the sentence than the justness of it, and I see that as a worse problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

In many things the ancients got it right the first time.

---

Yep. Just ask any Carthaginian you meet on the street. ;)

Roflmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

mkemse: I believe that Scott Peterson's penalty is justice. While he committed murder, it was of a personal nature rather than a random attack. I don't advocate the death penalty for something like that. I also wouldn't consider a child molestor to be eligible for the death penalty, unless he killed his victims in an attempt to cover up his crime.

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.

---

I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Saying things twice, ian, doesn't add any strength to your case at all.

---

And calling someone out for a software glitch that you have to KNOW, having been around long enough to have seen it happen before, is worse than petty.

Quote:

---

And remember, your original post called for the execution of someone you believe killed a girl as a jealous lover. He has only been charged with the crime; you dont even know if the young man concerned is guilty or not - yet you would bring back hanging to deal with him. You might not wish to kill all murderers as you claim, but I think you cast your net very wide.

---

"Presuming" that anyone here has argued for capital punishment without due process is a sure sign you aren't here to debate but to inflame.

Quote:

---

The difference between your position and mine is, I think, that you base your views upon people's perfectly understandable response to the horrendous acts they have been affected by. You tell me I would feel the same if I were similarly affected too. den makes the same point. I do not demur. If my wife or children were murdered, I'm sure I would be consumed with a such desire to make the killer pay that it might be unbearable, and even though he paid as expensively as possible, I would find it hard to get over their deaths. My calls for the restoration of the death penalty would be natural, and they would, no doubt, be encouraged by people who think like you do.

My position would have become biased and my motives would be flawed.

My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation),

---

Quotations carry with them an understanding of some of the arguements that originally back it up. To call someones use "trite' is uncalled for, especially as none of us needs to hear all of the logic and dialogue that would be needed to say it otherwise to understand those peoples' opinions.

Quote:

---

with the protection of society against repetition as the first priority and the possible rehabilitation of the killer as its main aim. I doubt his imprisonment (or death) will stop other people killing, so it is pointless to think of this kind of punishment as an example for others.

---

I don't think anyone is saying the death penalty stops others from killing, but we know it stops the executed person from doing so again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Why do you insist on such guarantees when you cannot guarantee that only the guilty will be executed?

Here's my trite quotation:Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally" (per wikipedia).

---

Calling yourself out doesn't excuse you.

As to your point, Fortescue wasn't suggesting that a person found guilty should not be capitally punished. In fact, a system of justice that goes out of its way to be sure of guilt, has the right to punish capitally. He was against capricious justice systems.

That said, no point in you arguing we can't be sure. We've (mostly) already agreed on that point and agree that a capital sentence must come with a series of automatic reviews, appeals, and the application of new science as it becomes available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Yep. Just ask any Carthaginian you meet on the street. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Roflmao

---

And yet... I appreciate your sense of humor and history. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

And remember, your original post called for the execution of someone you believe killed a girl as a jealous lover. He has only been charged with the crime; you dont even know if the young man concerned is guilty or not - yet you would bring back hanging to deal with him. You might not wish to kill all murderers as you claim, but I think you cast your net very wide.

---

MMI, don’t take me for a fool or insult my intelligence, I never once stated that the young man should be executed without being tried first before his peers and equals, so don’t ever twist my words to satisfy you own weak argument. I would bring back the hanging for all premeditated murders without favour and not just for him if he is guilty. I would also bring it back for murder while committing another felony IE: - armed robbery, mugging, and auto theft. There is also a case of treason, and piracy on the high seas, and the latter is still taking place as we write these posts.

[QUOTE=MMI;842201]If my wife or children were murdered, I'm sure I would be consumed with a such desire to make the killer pay that it might be unbearable, and even though he paid as expensively as possible, I would find it hard to get over their deaths. My calls for the restoration of the death penalty would be natural, and they would, no doubt, be encouraged by people who think like you do.[QUOTE]

So you are human after all and with the same desire for revenge laying dormant inside you, just like the rest of us, I was wondering. Then again I expect you to turn that word into justice, but I’ll bet I will not hear rehabilitation coming from your lips, I doubt very much if it would have room in your heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Saying things twice, ian, doesn't add any strength to your case at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

And calling someone out for a software glitch that you have to KNOW, having been around long enough to have seen it happen before, is worse than petty.

---

Thank you Ozme52 for your correct observation and remark, as words fail me.

Regards ian 2411

I think there is a lot to be said for Actual Life in prison, rather than 15 years or 25 years. That being said the death penalty is awkward.

Some of the most famous murder cases are famous precisely because of the press. That is to say the press plays up the nature of the crimes and makes the person so reviled that the prosecutors feel obliged to press for the maximum possible sentence. It's not often the merits of the case that decide these things, but rather the budgetary concerns, the public reaction and the effects on elected officials. One of Canada's most famous 'killers' spent 25 years in jail before being found innocent through new evidence (DNA). There have been quite a few such cases with the discovery of DNA evidence, and its hard to believe that the next level of evidence will show the same thing.

People who are alive have advocates to call for such testing. I wouldn't be surprised if DNA evidence would show that a small number of capital cases in the 1970's and 1980's actually involved innocent people. Of course such testing will never get done because no one has their freedom at stake, and the state would be liable for erroneously putting someone to death if they found that they did such. If 25 years in prison erroneously costs between $1-$10 million in damages, I can't imagine what the jury would reward for erroneous executions.

The thing about an advocacy system is that people are routinely "negligent" in the eyes of civil law. When your career is based upon providing evidence for successful convictions, you often don't pursue paths that a reasonable person in the eyes of the law ought to pursue that would eliminate a suspect. The police system is in parts political and like all things political suffers from corruption.

While Saheli may be right in saying we can not assign a dollar value to life, in the specifics of this discussion we are assigning a value of "life" to "life". That is an appropriate value!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

Saheli: But for those who kill innocent people who's only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, these killers are a threat to society as a whole. No one is safe. And no prison is escape proof. While the likelihood of them getting back into the real world may be small, it is too great a risk to take. These kinds of killers deserve a death sentence.
Thorne


I agree but not completely. I agree in the sense I suppose you mean, murders that are done out of malice and hate rather than, say, self-defense or some other, more understandable reason...if murder is ever truly understandable. If someone kills out of hatefulness, that is a HUGE risk to society. But I also agree with MMI when he said, "Saheli, I, for one, am not prepared to say that the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail is greater than the value of his life." Who of us has the right to assign any dollar amount to a life? This debate in my opinion is about the lesser of two evils rather than which is the sensible thing to do. Instead of choosing based on appeal, we much choose based on avoidance: in the end it comes down to which one is a little less terrible.

---

It was not solely the "virtue" of the victim. But that virtue, not being a party to the actions and the callous disregard of the "virtue of life" by the offender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

If the criterion for execution is the supposed innocence of the victim, then there's going to be a helluva lot of motorists lining up at the foot of the gallows, waiting their turn for the bag to be put over their heads and the rope around their necks. If a man is to be killed by the lawgivers, then let it at least be because of the killer's motives, not the victim's virtues: it matters not whether the victim was a paragon of perfection or had no redeeming characteristics at all.

My own view is that calls for the death penalty are, by and large, posturing, and if some tyrant suddenly siezed power and ordered that anyone convicted of murder should be put to death immediately, then theirs would be among the howls of protest that would be heard. People say, glibly, "I would be willing to flip the switch/throw the lever/stick the needle in," but, frankly, I don't believe it, and it would prove nothing if I did. I suggest that very few of us have the bottle to do that kind of thing, because taking a life is such an enormous thing for most people to do. OK - some of us have it, people who place but a small value on life, people with little perception of the difference between right and wrong, or people who feel that a clear demonstration must be made of what the consequences will be for transgressing the law: an example must be made. If you think you could do it, think again. If you still think you could do it, consider seeking help.

A life for a life is such a trite phrase, trotted out by many to avoid the need to justify capital punishment. It is a principle applicable to an ancient society, an ancient way of life, when justice was primitive and less than even-handed. If we're calling upon historical precedent, why is that any better than the Scandinavian custom whereby the victim's relatives could make the killer pay compensation for the loss they had suffered. Murder was a civil matter rather than a criminal one.

I like to think we're much better than that in this day and age. I'm not adovcating that we turn the other cheek in murder cases, but I also do not think that punishment has to be any more severe than is necessary to protect society. I accept that, in some cases, the only way this can be done is to remove an offender from society competely and permanently, but there are other ways of doing that instead of killing him.

---

Just a piece of information. In Japan, at least within my somewhat dated memory, you kill someone with a car and it is entirely possible to spend the rest of your life in prison. The younger the victim the greater the certitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

I don’t think you have heard a word that anyone has said, I can’t remember anywhere in this thread where it has been said all killers must die. I have very hard views on murder, but even I have not said that in any of my posts, and I don’t believe anyone else has either. Of course people on the threads are not calling for the death of every person that causes death through some misfortune that could have been avoided. Although I think that death by dangerous driving should have a far greater sentence that the few years these careless idiots are getting at the present time. There are cases where the death penalty would be inappropriate, in fact where any verdict other than acquittal would be too harsh. That is why even in England, where a person has been found guilty of murder, a Judge can show clemency and can still acquit the guilty. Even cases in the UK are all subject to appeal as well you know MMI, but at the end of the day there are extreme cases where the murderer will never change.

I will point out a fact that no one knows how the murderer is going to react after a lengthy jail sentence. I was watching crime and punishment on the TV about three days ago. A person in the USA was given 20 years to life for murder and attempted murder, after 25 years he was paroled as a model prisoner, within six months he had killed again, now that says a lot for rehabilitation. The punishment should fit the crime as you keep bleating and I agree, but premeditated murder is not excusable in a modern society, take a life for gain and you should lose your own. If a person killed your daughter, wife, mother, and was given life, with a chance of parole in 25-30 years time, after he has been watching TV, playing recreational sport, three meals a day, warm safe environment, seeing their own spouse, mother, siblings. Then MMI, come back and tell us how you forgave the murderer, and you are happy with the sentence he received. Knowing full well that at any time there could be an appeal along the line, because of another human rights law that allows him to come out ten years early, probably thought out by a panel of abolitionary idiots. As denuseri has stated, it is easy to push your argument, because until it touches you, and I hope it never does, you will have no idea what others are talking about.

Regards ian 2411

---

"it is easy to push your argument, because until it touches you, and I hope it never does, you will have no idea what others are talking about."

Kind of like the curse our parents layed on us all. "Wait until you have kids of your own!"

"I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime, by the way - that was said by someone on your side of the argument ... another trite quotation)"

There is no difference in the two statements!

But they have TV, cable in fact. And a free gym membership. Plenty of time for socializing. Good food. Libraries and school classes, if they choose. Free medical treatment. Sports. Outside visitors, some times even conjugal. In other words the ultimate level of welfare.
Perhaps the only thing lacking is security from the criminal element!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

I agree I was not clear, if a Child Molester killed the child they do deserve the death penilty
There are a few othr situation where I could live with usdingit, but gneraly speaking i think life in prison witn no parole is more severe the the death penilty, becuase the person who commited the crime would have to live the rat of his or her life in a small cell and think about what they did, puttingthem to death solves nothing, making them live withthe crime the ret o their lives in a 10x14 cell over time would have an effect on them, no tv, magazines all they can do is think and look out a window if the have one in their cell
As far as SCott Peterson goes, he got what he deserved, killing him would be his easy way out, making him look daily atthr spot where his wifes body washed up onshore will have a far deeeper effect in the long term for him then taking his life and i do not think whether it was personal ro not is the issue, the crime if killing his wife AND unborn son in itself is enough and yes he did get what he deseres, no death entily andthe rest of this life 23 hours a day in a cell 1 hour to shower and excersie is almost to kind

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Just a piece of information. In Japan, at least within my somewhat dated memory, you kill someone with a car and it is entirely possible to spend the rest of your life in prison. The younger the victim the greater the certitude.

---

When I lived in Japan, the rule of thumb with vehicular mannsluaghter crimes or other forms of acedental injury or death was that you had to be able to pay a certian monetary amount to the bereved or face jail time.

As for recent changes in the impecable legal system they have had in place for years:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=63030

A question for you then MMI:

So are you saying that a rapist or someone guilty of kidnapping and torture of their victum should only have to sit in jail for a certian period of time geting three square meals a day but have no other form of retribution delivered upon them?

Hardely seems fair to the victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

And calling someone out for a software glitch that you have to KNOW, having been around long enough to have seen it happen before, is worse than petty.

---

True, but reread some of the exchanges here and see if it is really out of place. Besides, it amused me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

"Presuming" that anyone here has argued for capital punishment without due process is a sure sign you aren't here to debate but to inflame.

---

Go back to the first post. The accused referred to has not yet been tried, let alone convicted, and the poster is saying, in nearly as many words, that he will get off with a relatively light sentence when the penalty he truly deserves is unavailable under English law. That's trial, verdict and sentence in half a dozen lines. Where's the due process there, and whose argument is the more inflammatory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Quotations carry with them an understanding of some of the arguements that originally back it up. To call someones use "trite' is uncalled for, especially as none of us needs to hear all of the logic and dialogue that would be needed to say it otherwise to understand those peoples' opinions.

---

One has to describe things the way one sees them. "A life for a life" is so hackneyed and tired that is has lost all the impact it once had. So, yes, it is trite, and I am entitled to say so.

Now I have reviewed this thread, I see it was you who first introduced the phrase. At least you used it only to try to elucidate the meaning of yet another tired and hackneyed quotation. It has also been used by another poster to support the cause of judicial murder, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I don't think anyone is saying the death penalty stops others from killing, but we know it stops the executed person from doing so again.

---

I think we all realise that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

[COLOR="lime"]
... Fortescue wasn't suggesting that a person found guilty should not be capitally punished. In fact, a system of justice that goes out of its way to be sure of guilt, has the right to punish capitally. He was against capricious justice systems.

---

Yes, I accept that. What kind of system would English criminal justice be, if not capricious, if it executed suspects in the manner proposed in post number 1? Fortescue would have argued (I presume - I have not read him), that it would be "capricious" to execute someone when it was not certain he deserved the death penalty.

But we can't, as I've pointed out a couple of times already, always be sure ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

[COLOR="lime"]

That said, no point in you arguing we can't be sure. We've (mostly) already agreed on that point and agree that a capital sentence must come with a series of automatic reviews, appeals, and the application of new science as it becomes available.

---

I see you have anticipated me, but we haven't fully agreed on this point. They must be there, of course, but they must also be completely reliable. Most of you on your side of the argument might agree with the proposition as it is ... must agree, I suppose, but no-one on my side (and there have been one or two) can possibly concede it. The appeals system is inadequate: innocent people have been hanged here in spite of it. As I said before, the Common Law approach to determining guilt or innocence depends more upon the barrister's skills than whether the accused committed the crime.

As for science, there's a long way to go before it can be relied upon completely for absolute certainty, so we shouldn't be acting as though it is foolproof already. As yet, not even DNA can prove a person committed a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

And yet... I appreciate your sense of humor and history. :cool:

---

Yes, a little levity now and then is important when frank and earnest points of view are being exchanged, no matter in how friendly a manner.

The observation was startlingly clever and highly amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

MMI, don’t take me for a fool or insult my intelligence, I never once stated that the young man should be executed without being tried first before his peers and equals, so don’t ever twist my words to satisfy you own weak argument. I would bring back the hanging for all premeditated murders without favour and not just for him if he is guilty.

---

In your original post you said,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

I believe in certain cases an eye for an eye and a life for a life. Don’t for one minute think that I have not thought this out, as I know there are cases where it was inevitable things would turn out nasty ... a crime of passion ... only deserve life meaning life and in some cases less or even freedom. I have brought up this question because of the young girl being murdered last week ... and who did it? The girls ex boyfriend killed her [emphasis supplied] ... I expect him to give a plea of guilty and get life, but life in the UK life is 15 years, now that cannot be right[emphasis supplied]. Now the question is, should the UK ... hang the murderers...? [emphasis supplied]Also if it was brought back, have we any Judges that have the balls to serve out the sentence of death[emphasis supplied], at the moment they have a softer attitude than the JPs.

---

No, you didn't say the accused should be executed without being tried first, but neither did you say he shouldn't. What you did say was he committed the crime and that, after he had pleaded guilty, which you anticipated, it would be wrong if he only got life. And then you suggested that hanging be brought back and hanging judges too. The implication is clear.

Besides, wasn't this a crime of passion? Not that English law recognises such a thing.

(Ooops: Ozme wasn't the first to use "a life for a life." If they are appropriate, apologies are tendered.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

A question for you then MMI:

So are you saying that a rapist or someone guilty of kidnapping and torture of their victum should only have to sit in jail for a certian period of time geting three square meals a day but have no other form of retribution delivered upon them?

Hardely seems fair to the victims.

---

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

.My own argument, on the other hand, focuses on the crime rather than the victim, and I feel that the crime must be punished fairly (I don't think I've ever said the punishment should fit the crime...

---

I have to ask: if the crime is punished fairly, then wouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

---

I agree that punishments should not depend on how victims feel about things. I believe they should be somewhat of a reflection of the damage doled out to the victim: damage-focused, not victim-focused. Sometimes, they may equal, but that should be irrelevant. Can you imagine the psychological damage done to a child victim of rape? What if the rape was a longterm constant component of the child's life? What if the rapist was a family member? There are so many details that add varying degrees of damage. A few months in prison or even a couple of years pales in comparison.

There is nothing that anyone could do to such a rapist to impart the damage that was done to the child...unfortunately. But to say that if a court hands down a verdict, that's fine is not something I agree with. Of course we all should have respect to the systems that govern our lands, wherever we are in the world, but the only way I could agree to the statement that we should accept all verdicts handed down would be if that acceptance was accompanied by absolute certainty that the verdict was just.

Of course, we also know that there will never be a certainty either way: some verdicts are just while others are more of a joke. So back to the rapist, whose verdict might or might not be just...how do you define "just"? I don't know that we can, which is really what this entire thread is about. Is the death penalty justice? A few years, months? Guilt-driven, psyhological self-punishments?

I don't know what the answer is. But in the case of a child rapist, if the court hands down a couple of years when that child will be psychologically scarred for ALL OF THEIRS doesn't seem to be anywhere close to just in my opinion. So in that case I wouldn't be able to just accept the decision. You can never repair all damage done. I think we all know that. But we can get a little closer, don't you think?

As far as torturing criminals who have tortured other people, YES that is EXACTLY what I would consider justice! The main reason I believe that isn't a common practice is because there are so many other scenarios which would make that difficult to determine. What do you do to someone who got drunk and hit another car, killing someone? Put the criminal in a car, get drunk, and hit him? But in cases where it is a fairly obvious and not too difficult thing to do, no matter how inhumane it is, that is justice. So in that case I would absolutely be 100% in favor of torturing a torturer. And I wouldn't be opposed to having it taped and sold, either...send the money to the victim (if still alive) or victim's family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian 2411

The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life.

I have brought up this question because of the young girl being murdered last week in my country, and who did it? The girls ex boyfriend killed her, and I think that that is premeditated whatever the excuse. I expect him to give a plea of guilty and get life, but life in the UK life is 15 years, now that cannot be right. Life meaning life in this country will never happen, because of all the do good people that say, a prisoner must keep the knowledge that he might be freed one day.

---

As we are talking petty things MMI, I have not stated he is guilty, I stated that he has done the crime, yes it is presumptuous, but just in case you have not read the papers lately, the police have stated, “They are looking for no one else in connection with the murder of this poor girl,” I wonder what that means, you had better explain that to me also? If he is found guilty of the murder of a young innocent that has her life in front of her, then yes I would ask that he be executed, and just once more for you MMI. [A LIFE FOR A LIFE] in brackets this time so there is no need to highlight my words. Yes, I have suggested hanging judges be brought back, and you have grasped that implication clearly, in fact it was not a suggestion but a plea. It will not deter others committing murder, as I am not that naive to think of such things, but it would take a lot of trash off the streets. Let’s get something straight that we have all forgotten, I might be in favour of the death penalty, but that does not mean I like the idea, because I think it is a barbaric way of justice. I very much doubt that anyone that has written a post in this thread likes the death penalty, but until there is more just form of punishment that faces a perpetrator of these heinous crimes, they might be thinking like me that there is no alternative.

Regards ian 2411

You said he did it. That's the same as saying he's guilty!

The more just punishment is life (and I agree that must mean life).

As for your reference to "trash" it is objectionable in this context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

I have to ask: if the crime is punished fairly, then wouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

---

I agree they can be the same. I was simply pointing out that the phrase "the punishment must fit the crime" wasn't mine.

I don't agree that doing the same thing to the perpetrator that he did to the victim, whether that be killing him, torturing him, or raping him, necessarily fits the crime. It simply mirrors it.

If we are to abandon our established penal systems in favour of handing the convict over to the victim (or his family), then we are abandoning justice in favour of revenge. That way lies chaos and anarchy.

As for filming it, I find the idea sickening.

A punishment can't be decided by the victims, after all there is a need for balance, justice and retribution are very different things. Ancient Babylon is not a place in which any of us would want to live.

That being said the punishment must be adequate enough that society has a reasonable belief that the punishment is fair. If people believe criminals are coddled, they lose trust in the government to protect them from crime, and there is also an increase in vigilante justice. Both of these things are highly undesirable.

Finding this balance is incredibly difficult. Reform of the justice system is very politicized and its hard to get people to sit down and focus on making a good system when people can't even agree on what the jail system is supposed to do.

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

The exact details of such a system would require a lot of work, but it seems better than what we have now. Especially since forced labour is either limited or legally problematic in a lot of states.

Of course some people cringe at the idea of compensating prisoners for work in any way even if they can't keep the money for themselves.

The cushy image of jails that the right tends to paint is inaccurate in a lot of ways.

While its true that jails do have access to televisions they are shared among large groups which limits the availability of what can be watched. This is also available only during a very limited period of the day.

The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.

---

While I agree with your statement, you have to ask: given the choice between life in prison and death, how many murderers would choose death? My guess is that damned few would. And none of them gave their victims such a choice, did they?

Life is sweet, so they will choose life. And so they will serve their sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I don't agree that doing the same thing to the perpetrator that he did to the victim, whether that be killing him, torturing him, or raping him, necessarily fits the crime. It simply mirrors it.

If we are to abandon our established penal systems in favour of handing the convict over to the victim (or his family), then we are abandoning justice in favour of revenge. That way lies chaos and anarchy.

As for filming it, I find the idea sickening.

---

I completely agree that doing to an offender what has been done by them is mirroring the crime, which in my opinion is the truest form of justice. Why is it that you feel that is NOT justice? What is your argument for that?

Not all establishments are always fair, but as I mentioned before they should be respected, and I don't think any convict should ever be handed over to the victim's family. That's not what I said or meant.

As for filming, I respect your opinion, but it is no more sickening to do to the convict what was done to the victim. If such a punishment were given (regardless of whether it was filmed or not), that would not be handing someone over to the victim or victim's family...so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that idea from. If you are saying it because you feel the satisfaction of the people who watch the mirrored crime negates the justice I would have to ask you to defend that idea to, because a side emotion has nothing to do with motive...It would be just whether anyone else felt anything.

If the cliche "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is what we consider justice, then I don't understand why you feel a punishment that mirrors a crime is justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

---

I really like your idea and would definitely vote for something like that if the opportunity ever arose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

A punishment can't be decided by the victims, after all there is a need for balance, justice and retribution are very different things. Ancient Babylon is not a place in which any of us would want to live.

That being said the punishment must be adequate enough that society has a reasonable belief that the punishment is fair. If people believe criminals are coddled, they lose trust in the government to protect them from crime, and there is also an increase in vigilante justice. Both of these things are highly undesirable.

Finding this balance is incredibly difficult. Reform of the justice system is very politicized and its hard to get people to sit down and focus on making a good system when people can't even agree on what the jail system is supposed to do.

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

The exact details of such a system would require a lot of work, but it seems better than what we have now. Especially since forced labour is either limited or legally problematic in a lot of states.

Of course some people cringe at the idea of compensating prisoners for work in any way even if they can't keep the money for themselves.

The cushy image of jails that the right tends to paint is inaccurate in a lot of ways.

While its true that jails do have access to televisions they are shared among large groups which limits the availability of what can be watched. This is also available only during a very limited period of the day.

The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.

---

That hasn’t got a hope in hell of working with the majority of prisoners, because most are habitual, and I presume you are talking about murderers, for god’s sake get real, apart from a minute percent you could never trust them again however many credits they had. The murderers lost all credibility when they carried out their heinous crimes, they are there to be punished, and that is only because they escaped the death penalty.

Regards ian 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

given the choice between life in prison and death, how many murderers would choose death? My guess is that damned few would. And none of them gave their victims such a choice, did they?

---

That is so very true.

Regards ian 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

I completely agree that doing to an offender what has been done by them is mirroring the crime, which in my opinion is the truest form of justice. Why is it that you feel that is NOT justice? What is your argument for that?

---

Mirroring the crime is tit-for-tat behaviour which might be appropriate for school playgrounds, but not for an advanced legal system, such as we have in England. It reduces the offence to somethng that can be cancelled out by an equivalent action, which is patent nonsense in a crime like murder. It brings judicial punishment down to the level of personal revenge, and it could lead to counter-retaliations and blood feuds. Look what happened in Iceland in Norse times.

Some offences are crimes against society: murder is one such. It is the duty of society to its citizens to capture murderers and to deal with them in a way that will protect society in the future. In doing so, they will set an appropriate penalty, or a range of penalties, according to acceptable standards, and they will sentence a convicted killer accordingly. Judicial punishment must be certain, measured and proportionate. It must be imposed dispassionately. Therefore the victim's family should not be allowed to influence that sentence, no matter how badly they feel about it.

That's justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

As for filming, I respect your opinion, but it is no more sickening to do to the convict what was done to the victim. ... If you are saying it because you feel the satisfaction of the people who watch the mirrored crime negates the justice I would have to ask you to defend that idea to, because a side emotion has nothing to do with motive...It would be just whether anyone else felt anything.

---

I don't think it affects the justice of the execution one way or the other. I just think it's gruesome and I wonder who it can be shown to: the vicitm's family, to prove what was done, so they can get closure?

Just tell them. Knowledge of the death should be closure enough

Anyone else can only want to see it for reasons that are disturbingly macarbre, ghoulish and depraved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I don't think it affects the justice of the execution one way or the other. I just think it's gruesome and I wonder who it can be shown to: the vicitm's family, to prove what was done, so they can get closure?

Just tell them. Knowledge of the death should be closure enough

Anyone else can only want to see it for reasons that are disturbingly macarbre, ghoulish and depraved.

---

At one time in history, punishments were public and brutal, and intended as a lesson for aspiring criminals. While I don't propose making executions brutal, I sometimes wonder if making them more public might not benefit society more than putting criminals away where people can forget they exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Mirroring the crime is tit-for-tat behaviour which might be appropriate for school playgrounds, but not for an advanced legal system, such as we have in England. It reduces the offence to somethng that can be cancelled out by an equivalent action, which is patent nonsense in a crime like murder. It brings judicial punishment down to the level of personal revenge, and it could lead to counter-retaliations and blood feuds. Look what happened in Iceland in Norse times.

Some offences are crimes against society: murder is one such. It is the duty of society to its citizens to capture murderers and to deal with them in a way that will protect society in the future. In doing so, they will set an appropriate penalty, or a range of penalties, according to acceptable standards, and they will sentence a convicted killer accordingly. Judicial punishment must be certain, measured and proportionate. It must be imposed dispassionately. Therefore the victim's family should not be allowed to influence that sentence, no matter how badly they feel about it.

That's justice.

---

You could look at it as tit-for-tat, but like I said, it goes back to the 'eye for an eye' thing. As far as what happened in Iceland in Norse times I have no idea what you're talking about...I might look it up. You say "judicial punishment must be certain, measured, and proportionate..." which doesn't contradict my submitted idea. You go on to say that "it must be imposed dispassionately." I agree. Just because I feel it is justice in the truest sense for an offender to endure his own offense does not mean I believe that the punishment should be given out of passion, and I never mentioned anything about the family being able to influence the sentence. So it really seems like your definition of justice is not too much different than mine. You just disagree that an offender should endure his own offense.

Your arguments seem to be that if such a sentence were imparted, it would be a passionate rather than an objective one; that such a sentence would not cancel out the crime and therefore not a valid punishment; that such punishments could "lead to counter-retaliations and blood-fueds"; and that the victim or victim's family would have some influence in such a sentence.

-->I disagree that such a sentence would inherently be passionate. That argument would have to extend to the death penalty as well, saying that if the death penalty were to be imparted then the sentence would have been one of feelings and not merit.

-->No sentence cancels out a crime. The fact that this punishment wouldn't says nothing either way about the validity of the punishment...show me a punishment for which this argument doesn't apply.

-->I can't speak to your Icelandic example until I have some idea what you're talking about.

-->Lastly, why do you assume that the victim/victim's family would have influenced the punishment if one such punishment were to be imparted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Yes, if that's the punishment handed down by the courts, that's the sentence he should serve (subject to any appeals).

It doesn't matter what the victims feel about it.

What would you have? A legal system that tortures the criminal?

---

Perhaps! If the criminal tortures their victim.
Prison in America is more of an enforced vacation than anything else. The only punishment that exists is meted out by the other prisoners. Although it is a crime on their part.

That is one of the difficulties of the American system of governance. We have codified that no punishment can be cruel or inhumane. That holds even when the crime is both cruel and inhumane. On the basis of that we can, in many cases, not provide a punishment that actually fits the crime. That is why in response to the torture question my answer is perhaps.
The measure of "cruel and inhumane" has be fixated upon to create the "luxury" prisons that now are de rigueur. There is no real punishment in prison, merely an inconvenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saheli

As far as torturing criminals who have tortured other people, YES that is EXACTLY what I would consider justice! The main reason I believe that isn't a common practice is because there are so many other scenarios which would make that difficult to determine. What do you do to someone who got drunk and hit another car, killing someone? Put the criminal in a car, get drunk, and hit him? But in cases where it is a fairly obvious and not too difficult thing to do, no matter how inhumane it is, that is justice. So in that case I would absolutely be 100% in favor of torturing a torturer. And I wouldn't be opposed to having it taped and sold, either...send the money to the victim (if still alive) or victim's family.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

You said he did it. That's the same as saying he's guilty!

The more just punishment is life (and I agree that must mean life).

As for your reference to "trash" it is objectionable in this context.

---

Yes he did say that but he also said he expected him to plead guilty. There has to be a reason for coming to that conclusion.

First of all in US prisons inmates do have access to compensated work.
As for the objection to the "right" based picture of prisons coddleing. The description that you present with the added comment; "The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire."
Is itself somewhat self serving. The description you present is very similar to the way the US military lives. Save for one thing, the military does not get locked in at night. Save for that your description also paints military life as "a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire." I guess the pay makes a difference as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

A punishment can't be decided by the victims, after all there is a need for balance, justice and retribution are very different things. Ancient Babylon is not a place in which any of us would want to live.

That being said the punishment must be adequate enough that society has a reasonable belief that the punishment is fair. If people believe criminals are coddled, they lose trust in the government to protect them from crime, and there is also an increase in vigilante justice. Both of these things are highly undesirable.

Finding this balance is incredibly difficult. Reform of the justice system is very politicized and its hard to get people to sit down and focus on making a good system when people can't even agree on what the jail system is supposed to do.

My personal taste would be a system that could effectively test reform. Ideally I'd like to see a system where prisoners had optional labour for which they could earn credits. These credits would be at the control of the prisoner and could be used to:

(i) provide compensation to the victims families.
(ii) get additional counseling/mentoring services
(iii) provide for family of the criminal (pay towards child support?)
(iv) Compensate the government for the cost of jailing

Thus when a prisoner's sentence is being considered one would have a track record, showing how much they were willing to work, and what their priorities were with that money. If someone worked long hours, paid compensation to the victims families, and took their other responsibilities seriously, and their counselors/mentors express clearly that they are unlikely to reoffend they would get out sooner than someone who doesn't show the above. The current system is largely bluff and guesswork, because individuals don't earn anything that could measure their responsibility.

The exact details of such a system would require a lot of work, but it seems better than what we have now. Especially since forced labour is either limited or legally problematic in a lot of states.

Of course some people cringe at the idea of compensating prisoners for work in any way even if they can't keep the money for themselves.

The cushy image of jails that the right tends to paint is inaccurate in a lot of ways.

While its true that jails do have access to televisions they are shared among large groups which limits the availability of what can be watched. This is also available only during a very limited period of the day.

The mere existence of televisions for prisoners does not mean that prisoners have the right to watch television the way you would use it.

They are still told when they can eat, when they must work, when they can relax, when they can exercise, and are monitored at all times without privacy. It's a miserable existence, that no one would want or desire. Only the most rabid politic would call it coddling.

---