Executions

[Ivor the Engineer]

I would not. Punishment is a valid response to criminal activity, and not simply for any deterrent effect it might have. Punishment serves its own, legitimate goal.

I could get next to rehabilitation concurrent with or subsequent to punishment. That's assuming we find an effective rehabilitation regimen. So far, our efforts have been generaly failures.

That's probably because the USA puts very little effort into rehabilitation, so much so that its prisons are practically schools for learning new criminal behaviours.

 

[Segnosaur]

jesus also taught that it was cool to keep slaves.
and you are right...i refuse to distinguish between capital punishment and killing for vengeance.
but, that is what true morality forces me to do.

This is pretty much the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You've arbitrarily decided that a defining characteristic of "true" morality is that you equate capital punishment and vengeance killing, even though claiming that all capital murders are for "vengeance" is to assume motives that might not exist in the involved parties.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Punishment serves its own, legitimate goal.

What is that, if it isn't deterrence or rehabilitation?

 

[sarge]

There have been some good programs. Thing is, the US justice system is more about punishment than anything else. Rehabilitation doesn't get much money, time, or effort.

Nope. The US has only a slightly higher rate of recividism than the "enlightened" countries that spend considerably more effort on the task. Right now, rehabilitation for adult offenders doesn't return much for the investment.

 

[sarge]

That's probably because the USA puts very little effort into rehabilitation, so much so that its prisons are practically schools for learning new criminal behaviours.

No, it probably is nothing of the kind. The UK fares not much better, and spends considerably more on the effort.

 

[sarge]

What is that, if it isn't deterrence or rehabilitation?

Well, punishment of course. It is fair, appropriate, and proper to punish, so long as the punishment is proportional to the crime. It is all of these things in addition to (rather than because of) its possible deterrent effect.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

No, it probably is nothing of the kind. The UK fares not much better, and spends considerably more on the effort.

And the UK is also much more punitive than other developed countries which are more rehabilitative and who happen to get better results from their justice system.

 

[Segnosaur]

That's probably because the USA puts very little effort into rehabilitation, so much so that its prisons are practically schools for learning new criminal behaviours.

No, it probably is nothing of the kind. The UK fares not much better, and spends considerably more on the effort.

Just out of curiosity, do either of you have any references to back up your claims? I've tried to do some basic searches, and while I found information, it wasn't necessarily simple to understand.

According to Wikipedia:
U.K. costs: 38,000 ($59,000) Re-arrest rate: 59% (2 years)
U.S. costs: $23,000 Re-arrest rate: 67% (3 years), although 52% actually returned to prison

So, the U.K. spends more than twice as much, with a slightly better recidivism rate (although the U.K. rate was given for 2 years, the U.S. for 3 years, which makes comparisons difficult.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_population_of_England_and_Wales

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not sure where you believe the hypocrisy comes into play. Capital punishment seems complete in line with passages like this:

For a Christian to kill a man in vengeance would be contrary to Jesus' teachings. For a Christian to bring the man to the government and have the government lawfully kill him, would not be.

You sure? The passage you quoted was signed "Paul" as far as I can see.

Rolfe.

 

[Drachasor]

Nope. The US has only a slightly higher rate of recividism than the "enlightened" countries that spend considerably more effort on the task. Right now, rehabilitation for adult offenders doesn't return much for the investment.

I meant there are isolated examples in the US of good programs. They usually don't last long and aren't adopted on a wide scale, however.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Well, punishment of course. It is fair, appropriate, and proper to punish, so long as the punishment is proportional to the crime. It is all of these things in addition to (rather than because of) its possible deterrent effect.

That doesn't answer the question. You said punishment has a purpose beyond deterrence or rehabilitation, I'd like to know what that is, just saying 'punishment' again doesn't advance your argument.

 

[bikerdruid]

You sure? The passage you quoted was signed "Paul" as far as I can see.

Rolfe.

paul speaks for jesus,..... doncha know?
they are old buddies since paul fall of his horse and hit his head.
jesus forgot to say lotsa stuff, like how women should be seen and not heard, so paul finishes his sentences for him.
sounds like the basis for credibility doesn't it?

 

[Drachasor]

Nope. The US has only a slightly higher rate of recividism than the "enlightened" countries that spend considerably more effort on the task. Right now, rehabilitation for adult offenders doesn't return much for the investment.

Oh, I misread you. There are countries out there with an absolute recidivism rate 10% or more lower than the U.S (after a couple years). So that's about a 20% lower rate relatively. That's not "slight".

 

[JJM 777]

Perhaps we shouldn't keep people in cages at all, or put them in solitary confinement for long periods of time.

What if we could 'fix' killers? Should they be released if they posed no more risk than you or I?

Not all criminals need to be fixed at all. Murder can be a once-in-a-lifetime project, wanted to kill just that one bastard whom hated for years. I promise to be good for the rest of my life, if you let me rob the bank just once.

Why is it important to consider how someone killed their victims for how they should be treated in prison, other than for reasons of safety and/or rehabilitation?

It is fair, the correct thing to do. It is the purpose of life.

 

[sarge]

Oh, I misread you. There are countries out there with an absolute recidivism rate 10% or more lower than the U.S (after a couple years). So that's about a 20% lower rate relatively. That's not "slight".

How is a 10% rate a 20% rate relatively?

I did a quick search and found several studies (they may be related studies) that show that Great Britain spends considerably more on rehabilitation and gets only a slightly better return for this considerable investment. I define a <10% improvement in the 3 year rate for non-drug crimes for more than twice the cost as "slight".

I do not discount rehabilitation as a goal. I place it behind punish and protect the public in importance. In fact, I only value rehabilitation because, when successful, it serves to protect the public.

 

[sarge]

That doesn't answer the question. You said punishment has a purpose beyond deterrence or rehabilitation, I'd like to know what that is, just saying 'punishment' again doesn't advance your argument.

Retribution. Restore the scales to level. The notion that wrongfully causing harm should carry a penalty is universal to human cultures. To steal is wrong, and it isn't enough to simply return the stolen property and promise not to steal again. Punishment satisfies the aggrieved party. That is a morally acceptable outcome that does not depend on a deterrent or rehabilitative effect.

 

[sarge]

Retribution. Restore the scales to level. The notion that wrongfully causing harm should carry a penalty is universal to human cultures. To steal is wrong, and it isn't enough to simply return the stolen property and promise not to steal again. Punishment satisfies the aggrieved party. That is a morally acceptable outcome that does not depend on a deterrent or rehabilitative effect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/george-wright-portugal_n_984976.html?ncid=webmail12

Mr Wright learns that punishment is a component of justice. There is no other reason to return him to custody. He appears to already be rehabilited, has lived for 40 years without posing a danger to society, and the link between punishment and deterence in this case would be weak.

 

[Rolfe]

I think you're wrong about the "40 years without posing a danger to society" part.

Rolfe.

 

[sarge]

I think you're wrong about the "40 years without posing a danger to society" part.

Rolfe.

In what way? If I read the story correctly and if the story itself is accurate, Wright has lived quietly without assault on person or society since about 1972.

I don't necessarily discount that being a fugitive and escaping punishment is itself harmful to society.

 

[Rolfe]

I was thinking of the 1972 hijacking, which he is (is alleged to have) carried out after escaping from prison, as still being within those 40 years.

Rolfe.