Crime ain't no cause for punishment.

[dtugg]

I think the costs would outweigh the benefits. I think making absolutely sure there crime isn't repeated is overkill, since in many cases we can make it very unlikely that the crime is repeated, and not have to have the guy in prison for fifty more years. Also, I don't believe in "an eye for an eye", so I don't care if the sentence is more, less or equally severe as the crime. I just care about what's best for the society.

Surely you agree that some of the scumbags will repeat their crimes, no matter how rehabilitated they might be or pretend to be. Do you think that additional, preventable rapes and murders are an acceptable cost to save some money for the state and so that some convicted rapists and murderers who are actually reformed don't have to spend life in prison? To answer the reverse of that, yes I think locking up all murderers and rapists for life is an acceptable cost of making absolutely sure that none of them can hurt anybody again. Plus I think they deserve to rot in prison (and actually, I think that simply killing them would be better if we could be 100% sure that they were guilty).

 

[Mirrorglass]

Surely you agree that some of the scumbags will repeat their crimes, no matter how rehabilitated they might be or pretend to be. Do you think that additional, preventable rapes and murders are an acceptable cost to save some money for the state and so that some convicted rapists and murderers who are actually reformed don't have to spend life in prison? To answer the reverse of that, yes I think locking up all murderers and rapists for life is an acceptable cost of making absolutely sure that none of them can hurt anybody again.

Surely you'll agree that some of the scumbags who were never convicted of any crime will rape and murder as well? If the rehabilitation is done properly, the freed convicts will do so no more likely than any other citizen. Perhaps even less likely, since they would probably be watched more vigilantly. And I've repeatedly stated I don't consider most criminals to be evil scumbags, but people with limited ability to function in society who should be guided and controlled, not thrown away.

Plus I think they deserve to rot in prison (and actually, I think that simply killing them would be better if we could be 100% sure that they were guilty).

I think this is simply wrong, as all people have their human rights, and no one benefits from hurting others. But the right/wrong aspect is subjective, I admit.

Another thing: how strictly do you define rape and murder, and should they invariably result in death sentence?

Would a drunken man having intercourse with a passed out woman count? Would it matter if it was his wife? What if the woman was simply stone drunk herself, and unable to decline? What if a woman took advantage of a drunken man?

Is causing another man's death always murder? What if it was self-defense? Or accidental, as in driving over a pedestrian? What if the accident was due to the driver talking on his cell? What if it was due him being drunk? Would a stabbing count if the culprit was under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs? What about if the drugs were slipped to his drink without his knowledge? What if a medical condition caused the hallucinations?

 

[Francesca R]

Another thing: how strictly do you define rape and murder, and should they invariably result in death sentence?

Would a drunken man having intercourse with a passed out woman count? Would it matter if it was his wife? What if the woman was simply stone drunk herself, and unable to decline? What if a woman took advantage of a drunken man?

Well--separate from the issue of sentencing (which is the discussion)--the definition of the crime of rape in many countries (includes England and Wales) encompasses all of those.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Well--separate from the issue of sentencing (which is the discussion)--the definition of the crime of rape in many countries (includes England and Wales) encompasses all of those.

True, but the sentences do differ. I think they also sometimes put in a prefix like "statutory" or "second-degree" to differentiate between levels of awfulness.

 

[dtugg]

I notice you didn't answer my question, but I answer yours anyway.

Surely you'll agree that some of the scumbags who were never convicted of any crime will rape and murder as well?

Of course. If they do and are caught, they should be locked with the key thrown away.

If the rehabilitation is done properly, the freed convicts will do so no more likely than any other citizen.

Assuming this is true, how can you tell if rehabilitation is done correctly sans psychic powers? Also, there are people who can't be rehabilitated (sociopaths/psychopaths) or don't want to but would pretend to be simply to get out of prison.

And I've repeatedly stated I don't consider most criminals to be evil scumbags, but people with limited ability to function in society who should be guided and controlled, not thrown away.

Most criminals are not evil scumbags, especially since the ridiculous war on drugs has made criminals out of millions of people for things that shouldn't even be crimes. But murderers and rapists are evil scumbags and should be thrown out for the trash they are.

I think this is simply wrong, as all people have their human rights,

Sure people have their human rights. Who says that human rights have to prevent convicted murderers and rapists from rotting in prison or being executed?

and no one benefits from hurting others.

Society benefits from hurting them (imprisoning and/or executing) because society can't be hurt by those people again.

Another thing: how strictly do you define rape and murder, and should they invariably result in death sentence?

Well, I am a little iffy on the death penalty. But only because some innocent people get killed because of it. I think life in prison is an acceptable alternative. But the basic definition of murder (ie unlawfully and purposely killing someone) is fine. And the rape would have to be forcible or against a young child.

Would a drunken man having intercourse with a passed out woman count? Would it matter if it was his wife? What if the woman was simply stone drunk herself, and unable to decline? What if a woman took advantage of a drunken man?

No on all of the above.

Is causing another man's death always murder?

Of course not. Look up "murder" in the dictionary.

What if it was self-defense?

No.

Or accidental, as in driving over a pedestrian?

No.

What if the accident was due to the driver talking on his cell?

No.

What if it was due him being drunk?

No.

Would a stabbing count if the culprit was under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs?

I think so.

What about if the drugs were slipped to his drink without his knowledge? What if a medical condition caused the hallucinations?

Probably not.

 

[Bikewer]

NPR last night ran a segment on Missouri's drug court system. (surprisingly, one of the better ones, with over a hundred in the state)
They are trying to expand the program even more, with the primary motivation being money saving. It costs under 1/5th as much to send an individual through the drug court program than it does for the typical drug-related incarceration.

It's more effective as well, the article cited a less-than 10% recidivism rate, much better than the stats for imprisonment.

 

[dtugg]

NPR last night ran a segment on Missouri's drug court system. (surprisingly, one of the better ones, with over a hundred in the state)
They are trying to expand the program even more, with the primary motivation being money saving. It costs under 1/5th as much to send an individual through the drug court program than it does for the typical drug-related incarceration.

It's more effective as well, the article cited a less-than 10% recidivism rate, much better than the stats for imprisonment.

It's better than putting them in prison. But it would best if these victimless "crimes" weren't illegal in the first place.

 

[Dog Town]

But it would best if these victimless "crimes" weren't illegal in the first place.

I firmly agree with this!

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Agree completely that imprisonment is not always appropriate, nor good for society. If the crime is minor and the person isn't a danger to society, then I feel community service is the way to go. Put someone in counseling and job training to make them a productive member of society, don't send them a criminal to turn a minor criminal into a hardened one.

I just don't like how a lot of crimes have "mandatory minimums." I feel each case really should be taken on its own merit.

I am also extremely, extremely against the practice of putting non violent criminals together with violent criminals.

If it is a major crime though, which does hurt society, jail time I feel is necessary because we need a deterent in place. Community service is not enough of a threat to keep someone like, say, Bernie Maddoff from wiping out his friends' life savings. Then also there is the aspect of keeping the public safe as well.

Also, I do think that some cases do warant punishment, even if we had some crystal ball that lets us know with certainty that you would never, ever offend again, that we should still lock you up forever and throw away the key. You're a pedophile, you murder someone horrifically for no reason, you're a slave trafficker...be gone with you. I feel there are some crimes where if you commit them, your life should be forfeit and you should spend forever behind bars.

And even if you didn't do something bad enough to warrant life in jail, I do think if you really hurt someone, you should be punished, even if not forever. I do believe in the concept of justice even if I think it's applied far too harshly in the United States. If you rape someone, or hit someone drunk driving, then I think (again, even if we had a crystal ball that told us for sure you'd never do it again) yes, you should have to pay for it.

But hey, I'm Italian. We love our Vendettas.

My impression is that you started off nicely but then got carried away by emotion Specifically here:

You're a pedophile, you murder someone horrifically for no reason, you're a slave trafficker...be gone with you.

I personally see no reason why these should be the exception. Keep in mind that confining them to social work (and by social work, I'm thinking something like construction or something crafty like that, where there's no risk a pedophile will strike again, unlike a hospital or something), still is no picnic. This still means they would be spending the night in jail, not some hotel. The only thing this means is that instead of sitting down in a cellar doing nothing for the whole day, they would actually be doing something productive as society's pawns. And it's not entirely unlikely that this new lifestyle could provide them some revelation about how to work in society and be a part of it (which being in isolation in a cell doesn't seem equally likely to be a good example of).

 

[Wrathernaut]

I don't have trouble requiring prisoners to work, or to contribute as possible to victim reparations. But I take issue with a couple of your points.

You define taxation as being "enslaved" to supporting the serial killer? I think that's rather a broad definition. If you consider the payment of taxes towards everything you didn't personally vote for to be slavery, then you have some fundamental problems with how a representative democracy functions.

Some of the things that you resent prisoners being offered are a matter of practicality rather than a question of what they deserve. In other words, it's done because there's an outcome (beneficial to society) desired more than being as harsh as possible. For example, the ability to keep order within the prison, or the ability of the prisoner to function as a law-abiding citizen upon release. You may not agree with what benefits society and what does not, but that's why we vote. Taxation with representation is nothing to fundamentally resent.

I think prisons (for those who don't get banished) should be at least self-sufficient. Let them as societies of their own to the extent possible, instead of parasitic on the greater society. Perhaps being part of a compressed-scale society would let the criminals would be able to see the negative effects of their actions instead of them being diluted into the larger society.

And yes, I'm aware that turning prisons into labor camps has horrible implications if corruption exists on the system filling them or managing them.

If they're self-sufficient, and my taxes aren't feeding the dredges of society, then I've got a lot less to complain about them.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I notice you didn't answer my question, but I answer yours anyway.

You mean this one?

Do you think that additional, preventable rapes and murders are an acceptable cost to save some money for the state and so that some convicted rapists and murderers who are actually reformed don't have to spend life in prison?

I felt I answered it, but I suppose I wasn't clear enough. Yes. In the system I endorse, the amount of rapes and murders keeping convicts imprisoned for life instead of freeing them after rehabilitation is negligible, and the amount of money saved is used to serve other needs of society, such as medical care and welfare. It doesn't take precognitive powers to minimize damage, just a good system with good psychiatrists and social workers.

Assuming this is true, how can you tell if rehabilitation is done correctly sans psychic powers? Also, there are people who can't be rehabilitated (sociopaths/psychopaths) or don't want to but would pretend to be simply to get out of prison.

See above for the first part. For the second part, it's a real concern, but sociopaths who can trick a trained psychiatrists are extremely rare, and should not be considered as the norm when making laws. And if a sociopath was smart enough to convince a psychiatrist he's no longer dangerous (something that would certainly take years or decades), I doubt he would be likely to commit additional crimes, knowing he'd go in for good this time.

Most criminals are not evil scumbags, especially since the ridiculous war on drugs has made criminals out of millions of people for things that shouldn't even be crimes. But murderers and rapists are evil scumbags and should be thrown out for the trash they are.

No, not all are. Some are simply victim of circumstance. Some are sick. Many can be re-educated to become proper citizens.

Sure people have their human rights. Who says that human rights have to prevent convicted murderers and rapists from rotting in prison or being executed?

Human rights generally include the right to live and the right to freedom. The latter is limited out of necessity in the case of criminals, but once the necessity is gone, the right still remains.

Society benefits from hurting them (imprisoning and/or executing) because society can't be hurt by those people again.

Society benefits from preventing new crimes. The hurting is simply a way to do this, and like I've said, an ineffective one.

Well, I am a little iffy on the death penalty. But only because some innocent people get killed because of it. I think life in prison is an acceptable alternative. But the basic definition of murder (ie unlawfully and purposely killing someone) is fine. And the rape would have to be forcible or against a young child.

I'm not sure why you think life in prison for innocent people is acceptable. There are also some other problems here.

Would a stabbing count if the culprit was under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs?

I think so.

So, imagine a situation. You're offered a drug by a friend and decide to take it, knowing it's hallucinogenic. The effect, however, is stronger than you expected. During the trip, you mistake a bystander for an orange and stab him to death. You had no intention to hurt the man; you just wanted to peel an orange. Should you go to jail for the rest of your life?

What about if the drugs were slipped to his drink without his knowledge? What if a medical condition caused the hallucinations?

Probably not.

But now we get to a problem. "Sociopath" and "psychopath" are both medical conditions, and not uncommonly associated with hallucinations. Yet you stated above you think people suffering from those conditions should still be sent to prison for their crimes. If you only think some medical conditions are an excuse, how do you establish which ones?

 

[JJM 777]

The general moral systems western countries and the UN accept these days do not revoke the human rights of criminals.

UN was and is a joke to begin with, especially in matters of international law, peace and security. Hardly anything what UN ever decided was the will of the majority of global population, yet UN claims to defend "democracy".

Eye for eye, right for right. As you do, so shall be done to you. Simple and just.

 

[GreyICE]

I think prisons (for those who don't get banished) should be at least self-sufficient. Let them as societies of their own to the extent possible, instead of parasitic on the greater society. Perhaps being part of a compressed-scale society would let the criminals would be able to see the negative effects of their actions instead of them being diluted into the larger society.

And yes, I'm aware that turning prisons into labor camps has horrible implications if corruption exists on the system filling them or managing them.

If they're self-sufficient, and my taxes aren't feeding the dredges of society, then I've got a lot less to complain about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

Okay, so, um... you don't think this is a sufficient drawback?

For everyone who likes labor camps, congrats. You just put Joe Arpaio in charge of the camp, as well as every other person like him.

Good. Frikkin. Job.

 

[dtugg]

I felt I answered it, but I suppose I wasn't clear enough. Yes. In the system I endorse, the amount of rapes and murders keeping convicts imprisoned for life instead of freeing them after rehabilitation is negligible, and the amount of money saved is used to serve other needs of society, such as medical care and welfare. It doesn't take precognitive powers to minimize damage, just a good system with good psychiatrists and social workers.

So you think that money and the so called rights of convicted criminals are more important than the rights of future murder and rape victims.

And do you even have any evidence proving that rehabilitated (whatever that is) rapists and murderers are no more likely to commit crimes than anybody else.

See above for the first part. For the second part, it's a real concern, but sociopaths who can trick a trained psychiatrists are extremely rare, and should not be considered as the norm when making laws. And if a sociopath was smart enough to convince a psychiatrist he's no longer dangerous (something that would certainly take years or decades), I doubt he would be likely to commit additional crimes, knowing he'd go in for good this time.

Maybe he would just be more careful to not get caught.

No, not all are. Some are simply victim of circumstance. Some are sick. Many can be re-educated to become proper citizens.

Sure they are evil scumbags. If they weren't, they wouldn't have raped and/or murdered anyone.

Human rights generally include the right to live and the right to freedom. The latter is limited out of necessity in the case of criminals, but once the necessity is gone, the right still remains.

Says who? And who says when the neccessity is gone?

Society benefits from preventing new crimes. The hurting is simply a way to do this,

Yeah.

and like I've said, an ineffective one.

It's actually a 100% effective way to prevent certain people from committing crimes again.

I'm not sure why you think life in prison for innocent people is acceptable. There are also some other problems here.

It's not. But it's better than killing them, and if evidence later exonerates them, they can be released, whereas if they are dead, nothing can be done.

So, imagine a situation. You're offered a drug by a friend and decide to take it, knowing it's hallucinogenic. The effect, however, is stronger than you expected. During the trip, you mistake a bystander for an orange and stab him to death. You had no intention to hurt the man; you just wanted to peel an orange. Should you go to jail for the rest of your life?

If the story is true, it wouldn't be murder. But if I was on a jury, I wouldn't believe it because I very familiar with hallucinogenic drugs and know the effects you descried are extremely unlikely.

But now we get to a problem. "Sociopath" and "psychopath" are both medical conditions, and not uncommonly associated with hallucinations. Yet you stated above you think people suffering from those conditions should still be sent to prison for their crimes. If you only think some medical conditions are an excuse, how do you establish which ones?

I think the current system in the place in the US is perfectly adequate. Basically, if if you can tell the difference between right and wrong, you have no excuse. Sociopaths/psychopaths know the difference, they just don't care.

 

[Mirrorglass]

So you think that money and the so called rights of convicted criminals are more important than the rights of future murder and rape victims.

No, but I think that, for example, saving ten lives with medical care would outweigh one extra rape victim. Sucks to be her, of course, but it would suck worse to be those ten dead people. What I care about is the highest possible benefit for the society on the whole.

And do you even have any evidence proving that rehabilitated (whatever that is) rapists and murderers are no more likely to commit crimes than anybody else.

No, I'm not proposing an actual blueprint of the model yet, just saying that it would be better than a system where all sentences were lifelong.

Human rights generally include the right to live and the right to freedom. The latter is limited out of necessity in the case of criminals, but once the necessity is gone, the right still remains.

Says who? And who says when the neccessity is gone?

Are you questioning freedom as a human right, or simply the claim that murderers have human rights? Either way, it's a matter of opinion, but most modern legal systems agree with my definition.

If the story is true, it wouldn't be murder. But if I was on a jury, I wouldn't believe it because I very familiar with hallucinogenic drugs and know the effects you descried are extremely unlikely.

It's rare, for sure, but cases like that have happened. I'm just using it to illustrate the fact that the seriousness of a crime does not depend purely on the consequences.

I think the current system in the place in the US is perfectly adequate. Basically, if if you can tell the difference between right and wrong, you have no excuse. Sociopaths/psychopaths know the difference, they just don't care.

I don't think that actually is the US legal system's view on schitzophrenic patients (many psychopaths fall into this category). It's certainly not a medical view.

 

[dtugg]

No, but I think that, for example, saving ten lives with medical care would outweigh one extra rape victim. Sucks to be her, of course, but it would suck worse to be those ten dead people. What I care about is the highest possible benefit for the society on the whole.

False choice fallacy. It is certainly possible to save both the rape victim and the people who would die without medical care. I would gladly pay slightly extra in taxes to put the rapist scum in prison to be positive he couldn't do it again.

No, I'm not proposing an actual blueprint of the model yet, just saying that it would be better than a system where all sentences were lifelong.

OK. So it is just like your vague suggestions for drug prohibition. No actual proof that it would work. But it is guaranteed that it would hurt innocent people.

Are you questioning freedom as a human right, or simply the claim that murderers have human rights? Either way, it's a matter of opinion, but most modern legal systems agree with my definition.

I am just saying that it is perfectly acceptable to take away the some rights of criminals. Every country in the world does it.

It's rare, for sure, but cases like that have happened. I'm just using it to illustrate the fact that the seriousness of a crime does not depend purely on the consequences.

I never said it did.

I don't think that actually is the US legal system's view on schitzophrenic patients (many psychopaths fall into this category).

In the US, any person who didn't know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the crime is not guilty. Of course, he may have to convince a judge and/or jury of this. And then he would be (or should be) locked up in a loony bin.

It's certainly not a medical view.

No, it's a legal definition. And one that is fair as possible as far as I am concerned.

 

[Mirrorglass]

False choice fallacy. It is certainly possible to save both the rape victim and the people who would die without medical care. I would gladly pay slightly extra in taxes to put the rapist scum in prison to be positive he couldn't do it again.

Actually, believe it or not, in every country public health care is making decisions that end up shortening people's lives because there simply isn't enough money to treat everyone with best possible treatment. The choice isn't false. And the idea that freed criminals would definitely commit more crimes is naive as well.

OK. So it is just like your vague suggestions for drug prohibition. No actual proof that it would work. But it is guaranteed that it would hurt innocent people.

Bolding mine.

Do you notice that this is also a baseless statement?. There's no "guarantee" a rehabilitated criminal will commit more crimes.

I am just saying that it is perfectly acceptable to take away the some rights of criminals. Every country in the world does it.

My point is it's not acceptable to take away more than necessary. Death penalty is never acceptable, and life imprisonment only when the danger to society is obvious.

In the US, any person who didn't know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the crime is not guilty. Of course, he may have to convince a judge and/or jury of this. And then he would be (or should be) locked up in a loony bin.

Bolding mine.

Mental health care has progressed a lot in the past hundred years. The treatment for delusional schitzophreniacs is no longer as simple as "locking them away in a looney bin".

 

[dtugg]

Actually, believe it or not, in every country public health care is making decisions that end up shortening people's lives because there simply isn't enough money to treat everyone with best possible treatment. The choice isn't false.

They could raise more money if they wanted to. So yes, false choice. Besides, my plan would actually likely save money overall because people wouldn't be thrown in prison for drug crimes and most other non-violent crimes.

And the idea that freed criminals would definitely commit more crimes is naive as well.

No it's not. A certain percentage (I won't speculate exactly what that is) definitely would.

Bolding mine.

Do you notice that this is also a baseless statement?. There's no "guarantee" a rehabilitated criminal will commit more crimes.

There is no guarantee that any individual criminal will. But when you have thousands and thousands of them, it is guaranteed that some of them will. And since there is no way to be sure which murderers and rapists will murder and rape again, it's best to lock them all away.

My point is it's not acceptable to take away more than necessary. Death penalty is never acceptable, and life imprisonment only when the danger to society is obvious.

Obvious danger? Like scum who have proved they are willing to murder and/or rape?

 

[Wrathernaut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

Okay, so, um... you don't think this is a sufficient drawback?

For everyone who likes labor camps, congrats. You just put Joe Arpaio in charge of the camp, as well as every other person like him.

Good. Frikkin. Job.

For the most part, I think he did a lot right with regards to running a prison.
But yeah, he probably took it a bit far.

 

[GreyICE]

For the most part, I think he did a lot right with regards to running a prison.
But yeah, he probably took it a bit far.

I'm choosing to take your first sentence as satire in light of the second one, and just note that yeah, what you think you're asking for if you ask for that and what you'll get ain't ever exactly the same thing.