|
Post by ChickenSoda on Jun 13, 2009 12:07:49 GMT -5
Life sentences costs us tax money!!! I don't know how things are in Australia, but in the US, the tons of appeals for death sentences cost us just as much tax money. A life sentence would be just fine moneywise if the prisons weren't luxury hotels. Then of course, there's all of the prison rape, but I hear that that's a distinctly American thing.
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Jun 13, 2009 22:08:10 GMT -5
Life sentences costs us tax money!!! I don't know how things are in Australia, but in the US, the tons of appeals for death sentences cost us just as much tax money. A life sentence would be just fine moneywise if the prisons weren't luxury hotels. Then of course, there's all of the prison rape, but I hear that that's a distinctly American thing. Yes it is costly not only because of appeals but the detailed (but necessary) investigation and trial process that goes into these cases, such as DNA testing. You don't even wanna know how much the state loses in reparations to the family in the splendid event that it's realized they executed the wrong person. It really is just a horrible, terrible practice. Humans simply are in no place to determine whether someone else should live or not, regardless of how disgusting and sick a person is. Death row proponents like to use the pedophile/rapist/child killer image as a selling point for their ideas because they know it'll get at people's emotions. We know there are sick and disgusting people that the world would be better off without. But to try and rid of all of them, running the risk of ridding an innocent individual and then being faced with the very question of who dies and who decides, is backwards. Where do we draw the line? Who dies and who decides? I'll tell ya what, if it were up to me and I decided anyone who is a threat to society or any sicko needed to be executed, that would be many, many more people than you can fathom. And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. If we practiced the death penalty through idealism, the world's human population would be very low. Atop all that, this doesn't reverse anything on the victim's part.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jun 13, 2009 23:50:41 GMT -5
If we aren't to end somebody's life, we should at least resume the practice of sterilizing serial rapists/pedophiles, and performing lobotomy's on the most violent convicts.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Jun 14, 2009 0:25:54 GMT -5
Life sentences costs us tax money!!! I don't know how things are in Australia, but in the US, the tons of appeals for death sentences cost us just as much tax money. A life sentence would be just fine moneywise if the prisons weren't luxury hotels. Then of course, there's all of the prison rape, but I hear that that's a distinctly American thing. Heh, prison in Australia is quite funny. Free food/free accommodation/free dental care/free health care, furthermore, you even get drugs smuggled in! That's how it is. Overpopulation is already a problem. Nonetheless yes death penalty can get out of hand, but there are still deeds unforgivable, and people who are unable to change - such people will never end up a majority. Agreed, if not the death penalty, make it harsher. I even read about a new tampon for women a few years back that has the ability to spike itself on any rapist's willy, not only is it painful, but makes it easier for police to identify and catch them. Unfortunately, it was considered "inhumane"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2009 4:14:31 GMT -5
If we aren't to end somebody's life, we should at least resume the practice of sterilizing serial rapists/pedophiles, and performing lobotomy's on the most violent convicts. I agree. It frustrates me to no end when I hear over and over on the news that a child has been molested and that it happened at the hands of a repeat offender.... maybe some rapists can be rehabilitated....but I'm not willing to take that risk. And he/she should pay for the suffering that they have brought upon the victim.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jun 14, 2009 5:37:55 GMT -5
And he/she should pay for the suffering that they have brought upon the victim. We want them to pay, but who gets the bill at the end of the day? Every 30 secs a child dies of malaria. It costs $1 to treat them. Putting an inmate on death row costs an additional $90,000 per year per inmate. 90,000 living children vs 1 dead inmate It ain't ever about the children--they're just cards in a political deck. If we really wanted to do some good, we'd use our brains not our passion for headlines. But that's not what this issue is about. It's just another excuse to sink further in trivial identity politics.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Jun 14, 2009 6:27:49 GMT -5
Haha!
You know living inmates costs $20,000 per year ne way, so would you prefer to have 20,000 living children die per year for an inmate serving let's say ~20 years (Total 400,000 dead children)?
Heh, obviously it's rather foolish to mix the cost of justice with charitable needs. But if you wish to bring charity into this, then there's your math.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jun 14, 2009 7:11:35 GMT -5
^ My response is already in the last paragraph of the original post. ;D
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jun 14, 2009 7:31:08 GMT -5
Let's leave money out of it so it doesn't affect our moral position. Assume it's not an issue.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jun 14, 2009 7:42:56 GMT -5
Since we're in the process of elimination....the common intellectual answer: If there isn't solution then there isn't a problem.
|
|
fei
Full Member
Posts: 274
|
Post by fei on Jun 14, 2009 7:47:09 GMT -5
Well guys, lives in spore and actually serve in spore police force before. As you know spore have tough law, you most likely get Cane( what happen to Micheal Fay) or Death sentence for serious crime.
We do this necessary to deter heinous crimes. Most of the time repeat offender will repeat the crime that they committed. If there harsher law, that will make them think twice before committing a crime. In the end of the day it not about the money or politic it about you and security of your family that count.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jun 14, 2009 7:55:40 GMT -5
Since we're in the process of elimination....the common intellectual answer: If there isn't solution then there isn't a problem. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean there isn't one.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jun 14, 2009 9:26:01 GMT -5
^ What solution/policy would satisfy both sides? Those who want more executions vs those who want none? Seriously. I wasn't quoting my own position and I'm not without imagination for compromises : Middle Ground Compromises to the Death Penalty Issuea) Live Long and Die. We could wait until an inmate is about to die of old age then before they can finish their last words--WHAM! A life sentence ice cream with a sweet cherry of an execution to top it off. b) Back to the Future. Like Solomon we could split the baby. Death penalty advocates get the body to burn and beat. Pro life (sentence) advocates get the cryogenically frozen head. If the guy later turns out to be innocent, he gets reanimated and chance to see the year 2032. c) Let the Viewers Decide. We put them all on an island with lots of cameras, sparse foliage, kangaroos and other forms of gruesome weaponry. If we in trust their blood thirsty instincts--which renders them a danger to society justifying their incarceration for life--they'll all be dead at the end of the first season. If they create their own civilization and invent an accent that world finds distinctly charming, then perhaps we were a bit hasty in our rush to execute them. Let natural law decide. It could be good for ratings and public broadcasting. And if there's a guy you just really hate and you don't want him to make it--just phone the hotline or text it in. d) Death Has It's Loopholes. In between dead dead and life are states such as clinical death and legal death. A vegetative state could be an acceptable middle ground between a death sentence and a life sentence. There's also clinical death for victims with Alzheimer or for those who blinked the first time. Watch them die--but not die die--multiple times, and not remember each time. It never gets old--only he does. e) Eliminate Crime. An impossibly stupid and sensible idea. Obviously that someone else's job, like Sweden's. While we're at it, why not build a prison that is run by inmates without external labor costs, contains and punishes them for eternity all the while consuming no water, electricity, or natural gas. Hell would have to freeze over, cross the border between Earth and limbo illegally, and setup business here for that to happen. [/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by ChickenSoda on Jun 14, 2009 9:55:47 GMT -5
c) Let the Viewers Decide. We put them all on an island with lots of cameras, sparse foliage, kangaroos and other forms of gruesome weaponry. If we in trust their blood thirsty instincts--which renders them a danger to society justifying their incarceration for life--they'll all be dead at the end of the first season. If create their own civilization and invent an accent that world finds distinctly charming, then perhaps we were a bit hasty in our rush to execute them. Let natural law decide. It could be good for ratings and public broadcasting. And if there's a guy you just really hate and you don't want him to make it--just phone the hotline or text it in. I really hope that society's morals degrade to this point in my lifetime. Anyway, I think that first and foremost, punishments should act as a deterrent. Personally, the proposition of getting anally raped in prison has about as much of an effect on me as the proposition of death. And I'm pretty for a guy, it'll happen. Any threat of punishment will deter most crime from people like me, and I'm sure that this applies to most of the people on this board. Then you have people who kind of got swept up in a violent lifestyle- gangsters, drug dealers, etc. These people aren't necessarily helpless sociopaths, and I think that a prison system geared more towards rehabilitation might work for them. After that, you have the criminals who simply have no regard for consequences, and are beyond help. Think Josef "I was born to rape" Fritzl types. Of course, these people will either get eaten alive in general population, or get put in solitary. Ultimately, while I like the idea of the death penalty for these types, I prefer imprisonment because it's a worse punishment. Palaver's paralysis idea would be neat, too. e) Eliminate Crime. An impossibly stupid and sensible idea. Obviously someone else's job. While we're at it, why not build a prison that is run by inmates without external labor costs, contains and punishes them for eternity all the while consuming no water, electricity, or natural gas. Hell would have to freeze over, cross the border between Earth and limbo illegally, and setup business here for that to happen. Eliminating crime has to be something that comes internally from society, not from external means such as prisons and punishments. Ultimately, however, if we eliminate crime completely, it will only be temporary and leave future generations vulnerable. Like in Demolition Man.
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jun 14, 2009 10:04:02 GMT -5
^ What solution/policy would satisfy both sides? Those who want more executions vs those who want none? Seriously. Lyk, serzly, I don't know. That's why we have a thread and discuss. Plus, it's mainly about hearing people's thoughts on the subject, not necessarily trying to find a universal solution. I wasn't quoting my own position and I'm not without imagination for compromises : Could you please explain why you posted it? To me, it seemed that you were suggesting that there was no problem and hence, no solution. If you disagree with it, like you implied ( 'not my own position'), then I imagine you would believe the opposite; that there's both a problem and a possible solution, which is why I don't understand why you posted a quote that seems to want us to drop discussion by making it seem pointless.
|
|