Death Sentences

I don't want to spend my taxes on prisoners who are dead (who wouldn't be dead if they hadn't of been executed) going to college and stuff like that, no prison should have only AC during extreme heat and it shouldn't be set on a COLD temp it should be just enough so it wasn't too hot. and, there should be no televisions or stereos or computers. Only a phone and electricity so they can see. Nothing else, oh and a toilet. They broke the law, it should be a lot harsher in prison then it actually is.

Unfortunately, that "they broke the law, treat them like scum" attitude apparently doesn't work. Making prisons hard, hardens criminals; when they come out, they are often worse than when they went in. Which, instead of reducing crime, creates more of it. I agree that the Halden model sounds quite pricey (though arguably that's counterbalanced by the smaller number of prisoners in Norway) but I definitely agree with the general idea. Making criminals hate authority, rules, and other people, then putting them out into the community, seems not merely a waste of funds (because even very poor/damaging prisons are very expensive) but actually spending money to make things worse.

For people who missed it,

pravda.:

check out this article on Halden, a Norwegian prison. Interesting idea/execution.

Primitive Rage:

I don't want to spend my taxes on prisoners who are dead (who wouldn't be dead if they hadn't of been executed) going to college and stuff like that, no prison should have only AC during extreme heat and it shouldn't be set on a COLD temp it should be just enough so it wasn't too hot. and, there should be no televisions or stereos or computers. Only a phone and electricity so they can see. Nothing else, oh and a toilet. They broke the law, it should be a lot harsher in prison then it actually is.

Except that you will brew severe resentment and hatred. This will cause riots, additional despair and more crime both within the prison system and outside it. A happy prison is a placid prison and you sure as hell won't get that using that method. and jesus, think about if you put some innocent person in that environment. How the hell would that effect them? Additionally, I think that it would make a prison guard's work even more hard since the environmental factors will effect them too.

It's my firm belief that circumstances can dictate a lot about criminality. I would say that it is the minority of prisoners who commit crimes do so purely from a personality aspect. Given the right circumstances, I'd say that many "normal" people would commit a crime.

Prison should be treated the same way that plant safety should. All too often, those hardline offenders will have been convicted of smaller crimes beforehand. If something had been done beforehand then it could save lives.

Primitive Rage:

I don't want to spend my taxes on prisoners who are dead (who wouldn't be dead if they hadn't of been executed) going to college and stuff like that, no prison should have only AC during extreme heat and it shouldn't be set on a COLD temp it should be just enough so it wasn't too hot. and, there should be no televisions or stereos or computers. Only a phone and electricity so they can see. Nothing else, oh and a toilet. They broke the law, it should be a lot harsher in prison then it actually is.

Are you talking about prisons, jails, or both?

I don't agree with it, but I don't agree with the sentences many receive either. Here, "life" doesn't mean life. Far from it in fact, because generally it is 16 years (for murder) and this can be cut down at any time. I think the "life for a life" theory should be placed - except it is life in prison not a death sentence.

Also, prisons here are like the above argument. They've got clean rooms, a comfortable bed, a flat screen television with satellite, an Xbox and a range of other things. Riots still happen regardless and in my opinion, some still come out as a criminal no matter what. I don't think they deserve, what I would call luxuries, for committing a crime (if it is a serious one). It is supposed to be a prison, not a holiday resort. I'm not saying only give the basics, but it needs to be slightly harsher in terms of their environment. It can be clean and comfortable without all the things they get.

^ So you believe the purpose of prison is, primarily, to punish?

What do you think that achieves?
[Not a rhetorical/sarcastic question.]

^ Somewhat, I guess. I thought that was the bases point in a prison - to punish you for your crime?

But I think it depends on what the individual has done as I see all the things, if the offense was serious, given to them in prison as kind of a reward for their actions. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that they should be treated poorly, but I think it's insane how some prisons here are lavish while there's other things - within prisons and outside - that could be funded. Like I mentioned in my previous post - riots still happen in these prisons that appear better. Prisoners will have hatred no matter what their environment is, so I think giving them all of these things to try and prevent what is inevitable, pointless.

I think prisons are either terrible or "too good", but I personally think inbetween ground would work well. Treated like a prisoner because well, that is what you are. I'd say it would achieve a feeling of never wanting to go back to prison, in my opinion it should. I find people saying that prison is better than their outside life, which is both saddening and somewhat frustrating (I'm strictly talking about crimes with longer sentences). They shouldn't want to end up in prison just because it's "better" than the lives we lead, in my opinion. Wanting to be in prison - doesn't that defeat the point of a prison?

Oh, I meant to reply to that. Basically, no, I don't think punishment is the point of prison at all except in terms of what the victim wants or may want, and the justice system is not about revenge.

Also, I entirely disagree with the suggestion that people will avoid committing crimes to avoid prison. Who weighs crimes carefully weighed and avoids them because people don't want prison? Oh, right, those who can afford to. The majority of crimes are committed out of desperation and opportunity. People do not generally commit crimes with the expectation of being caught. An increased desire to not return to prison will likely only lead to an increased desire to not get caught - which will probably involve committing other crimes, for example killing victims, witnesses and/or police. (This is a similar argument to that against the death penalty.) (And if that seems extreme, consider the extremity of the "too bad" prisons; rape, grievous bodily harm, potentially loss of one's life.)

I don't think non-violent crimes deserve prison at all. And as the article on Halden discusses - and as you admit - there are still riots in these "too good" prisons: because people do not like to lose their liberty; because being in prison means being in prison, no matter how humane the circumstances. I don't see how you can acknowledge that whilst somehow suggesting people want to go to prison. The only demographic I have heard that wants to go to prison are those who are older, have spent the majority of their life inside, and do not know how to function in the real world (let alone to find success in employment, housing, relationships, etc) - and in their cases it's arguable their lives have been ruined by their prison experience. They shouldn't be used as evidence of how 'good' prison is. (Since they are not unique to the "too good" prisons.)

And considering the benefits observed in 'humane' prisons (e.g. in many cases, actual rehabilitation; preparing prisoners for a life where they need not resort to crime) the idea that spending slightly more than we are already spending to bring about those benefits should be dismissed in favour of "punishing" people who made one or more mistakes seems draconian. Plenty of evidence suggests that poverty is not eliminated by throwing money at various areas - it is eliminated by education. Yes, we could throw money at education - but prisons could be used to treat those who have been failed by that system. Turning desperate or angry men into deeply violent authority-hating trauma victims seems no better (and more pointless) than torture, which I would hesitantly suggest most Mibbians are against.

---

I thought this was interesting. "Brazil will offer inmates in its crowded federal penitentiary system a new way to shorten their sentences: a reduction of four days for every book they read."
A panel decides who may participate in the program, called 'Redemption through Reading.'

^ Would that program depend on the book that they read and their reading level? I mean, I can read the early books of the HP series in a couple of hours or less whereas something like Ulysses would take me ages. It seems a bit unfair if someone like be can bolt though a lot of relatively short, relatively easy novels when someone who struggles with that level would get the exact same time off for reading that book.

It sounds a really interesting idea but it's just an issue that I think would arise.

The Master.:

Aye, sure, those are valid questions. I wonder whether they have an approved list. Ah, it does say "works of literature, philosophy, science or classics" - so it's quite possible 'easy' fiction will not be available.

making a new thread.

Reviving this thread (it's relevant to my studies this semester, and also, I miss discussion forums.)

My view is basically that killing people to show people that killing is wrong is, well, wrong. I think they should get life without parole perhaps, but not death. It's far too ethically murky to kill in the name of justice and law as far as I'm concerned and taking a life is bad for any soul.

@ This.Useless.Heart.
I think our justice system is so screwed up we can't possibly know if we're killing someone who is guilty. But do I think mass serial killers, cult leaders who rape dozens of children, and evil dictators deserve death if there are absolutely guilty? Possibly, yes.

@ miserable dru.
I agree with you on your first point as well. I was watching a documentary for my Psychology and Law class the other day about the guilty plea and how innocent people go to prison and shit for stuff they did not do, and it just reminded me how fucked up our legal system is. The risk of killing an innocent is too great.
However, I still stand by my point that death should not be used as a punishment for anyone. I honestly think people who are often thought of as deserving the death penalty should be imprisoned for life, preferably not somewhere that is nice in the least. They're still going to die anyway, and that way no one else has to dirty their hands (and spirit) with killing.
I mean, I do see your point, but I just have difficulty accepting that taking another life is ever okay, especially if it could be avoided in any way. By all means put those that are evil through hell (or let the universe do it for you would be better), but killing them is not real justice, just more killing.

@ This.Useless.Heart.
I don't see why I should have to pay my tax dollars to keep an assuredly convicted baby raper alive. And we have to give them certain things because they are afforded rights. I think if we had a flawless system where we were 100% sure every person was guilty then really bad people should just go away. They cannot contribute to society and they cannot be rehabilitated.

miserable dru.:

I don't see why I should have to pay my tax dollars to keep an assuredly convicted baby raper alive.

Actually, your tax dollars go to [/are wasted on] the death penalty. The death penalty is a more expensive system, because it takes so much effort, bureaucratically, to execute a person. One aspect being the many years of appeals. Just imprisoning a person is far cheaper. [1] [2] [3] And then there's the argument that it's a greater punishment to make a person pay for their crime/s for years rather than giving them the 'easy way out'.

@ pravda.
Appeals are part of the shity justice system though. Like I said, if we hd a 100% foolproof system that wasn't shitty like our current one. Today we have such a shitty criminal justice system I can't support the death penalty.

miserable dru.:

Appeals are part of the shity justice system though. Like I said, if we hd a 100% foolproof system that wasn't shitty like our current one. Today we have such a shitty criminal justice system I can't support the death penalty.

I think appeals are a completely necessary part of a system which is going to kill people. Once someone is dead, there's no undoing that. Which applies to the person being executed as well as a killer's victim/s. People who are a danger to the community should be removed from it, but I don't know if death is really the best solution (in terms of safety, prevention/deterrence, justice/revenge.)

@ pravda.
Yes, but as I'm saying, if we knew, without any doubt whatsoever, IMMEDIATELY, we wouldn't need appeals. I am saying in a hypothetical justice system that does not exist, I am for the death penalty. I'm not for it in the current one. So we cannot debate my stance with the current justice system because I've already stated it.

@ miserable dru.

Appeals do more than just contest the ruling / whether somebody is committed a crime or not, they can call into question the appropriateness of the sentence or whether proper protocol was followed.

But more importantly, demanding 'justice' / 'revenge' in the form of extreme violence on behalf of sexual violence survivors, who are usually conveniently incapable of speaking for themselves, is problematic, for so many different reasons. Beyond all the issues about silencing survivors by a) showing no interest in their opinions / experiences and b) creating these stereotypical images of the 'true' / 'brave' survivor as either a kind of vengeful vigilante or silent / powerless baby; what's really harmful about the 'a bullet for every rapist' discourse is that it makes people feel like they're radically anti-rape culture and nobody has the right to challenge that - when, in fact, asking for the death penalty or even implementing it does nothing to change rape culture and help survivors. What we need to do is refocus anti-rape activism on building support systems and away from seeking a 'revenge' / 'justice' that is inaccessible to 90% of survivors anyway.