Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Is lifelong imprisonment inhumane?

185 replies to this topic
VIPΣR
  • VIPΣR

    Doesn't give up the fight

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2012
  • European-Union

#91

Posted 05 May 2014 - 12:26 PM Edited by Undertaker13, 05 May 2014 - 12:26 PM.

If you take the life of someone for no "good" reason, you should get the same treatment. Lifelong imprisonment would be the best option and you can't call it inhumane, because those bastards deserved it. Those bastards who take other people's life are inhumane.

  • undertaker fan, CrysisAverted and igotskiz like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#92

Posted 05 May 2014 - 04:01 PM

If you take the life of someone for no "good" reason, you should get the same treatment.

Why?

I simply don't understand why this idea exists. It serves no societal purpose; it doesn't prevent crime; it reduces the concept of justice to mere retribution and it plays on the emotional whims of victims meaning it seldom if ever results in what is best for society as a whole. I don't understand why people with relatively liberal views on other subjects are swayed by it.

If there's an actual need for someone to remain isolated from society then it's in the interests of society for that to happen, but there's a wealth of compelling evidence supporting the notion that recuperation and reintegration into society offer lower crime rates than simply incarcerating people so why do the latter?
  • Tyler and EphemeralStar like this

Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#93

Posted 05 May 2014 - 05:42 PM Edited by Josh, 05 May 2014 - 05:43 PM.

This is quite an interesting topic for me, having just read the autobiography of a man whose life changed immeasurably  for the better inside the US prison system. I would love to see the UK move more towards the Scandinavian concept of prisons, but I can't see it happening any time soon.

  • sivispacem likes this

Dest45
  • Dest45

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2010

#94

Posted 10 February 2015 - 07:14 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 09:08) there's not a lot we can offer in the way of rehabilitation for people like this.
Why is that exactly? Why is exactly is someone's propensity to being rehabilitated inversely proportional to the severity of their offense?


Why should someone like that be rehabilitated even if they could be? Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean we need to do it.
  • GTA_stu likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#95

Posted 10 February 2015 - 07:16 AM Edited by Irviding, 10 February 2015 - 07:18 AM.

 

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 09:08) there's not a lot we can offer in the way of rehabilitation for people like this.
Why is that exactly? Why is exactly is someone's propensity to being rehabilitated inversely proportional to the severity of their offense?


Why should someone like that be rehabilitated even if they could be? Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean we need to do it.

 

Because that's by and large the best way to deal with it. From a utilitarian standpoint, rehabilitating criminals is much more successful than locking them up for 4 years, letting them become more hardened and dangerous, learn crime tactics from other inmates, then wreak more crime upon release. In terms of benefiting society rehabilitation, i.e. job training specifically, getting prisoners something to do so they aren't on the street ripping people off, is what works. 

  • Gay Tony and Share Sharqi like this

Dest45
  • Dest45

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2010

#96

Posted 10 February 2015 - 07:44 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 09:08) there's not a lot we can offer in the way of rehabilitation for people like this.
Why is that exactly? Why is exactly is someone's propensity to being rehabilitated inversely proportional to the severity of their offense?


undertaker fan
  • undertaker fan

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • Pakistan

#97

Posted 10 February 2015 - 10:19 AM

Instead of keeping them in jail for a long time why not kill them as they can never be forgiven

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#98

Posted 10 February 2015 - 11:32 AM

Because the death penalty doesn't actually have the effect of reducing crime? Because the US commonly executes innocent people due to miscarriages of justice? Because the death penalty is morally repugnant?
  • Captain VXR, Raavi, EphemeralStar and 1 other like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#99

Posted 10 February 2015 - 04:18 PM

I agree with you on those points Sivis but I wouldn't say that the US commonly is executing innocent people. It has happened before but it's extremely far beyond common.
  • sivispacem likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#100

Posted 10 February 2015 - 06:02 PM

The figure I've seen is a very conservative 4%. That doesn't take into account the fact that the campaigning for exoneration often stops after death; that's simply the proportion of death row convicts who are later exonerated.
  • Irviding likes this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    -

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#101

Posted 10 February 2015 - 06:13 PM

I'm all for gearing the criminal justice system towards rehabilitation for most offences, but for the worst offences I think rehabilitation shouldn't be an option because it makes a mockery of justice. I'd say it's morally wrong to allow someone who's murdered someone else, to live a happy normal life. That is not justice. In fact, I think it's morally wrong to let someone live at all if they've murdered someone else, letting them live AND allowing them a happy normal life is just a sick joke. It just completely diminishes the value we put on human life.

 

Human life is an incredibly precious thing, but not as an absolute principle. If you take someone else's life away and there aren't any mitigating circumstances, then imo you forfeit your own life. If you take someone elses life, you have no right to expect to live yourself. 

 

Also under the circumstances where someone has murdered a person, the idea that all that matters, or the thing which should take strict precedence over all other things is what is best for society, is a bit warped. That's quite an extreme interpretation of utalitarianism, which isn't really applied under any other circumstancess. The benefit that the rehabilitation of murderers has on society is so small and insignificant that it renders the argument virtually null and void anyways, that's assuming it has a benefit to society in the first place.

  • Irviding, Dest45, 007_eleven and 3 others like this

Dest45
  • Dest45

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2010

#102

Posted 10 February 2015 - 08:49 PM


 

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 09:08) there's not a lot we can offer in the way of rehabilitation for people like this.
Why is that exactly? Why is exactly is someone's propensity to being rehabilitated inversely proportional to the severity of their offense?

Why should someone like that be rehabilitated even if they could be? Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean we need to do it.
 
Because that's by and large the best way to deal with it. From a utilitarian standpoint, rehabilitating criminals is much more successful than locking them up for 4 years, letting them become more hardened and dangerous, learn crime tactics from other inmates, then wreak more crime upon release. In terms of benefiting society rehabilitation, i.e. job training specifically, getting prisoners something to do so they aren't on the street ripping people off, is what works. 

The crimes and sentences we are discussing are a little more significant than 4 years.


 

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 09:08) there's not a lot we can offer in the way of rehabilitation for people like this.
Why is that exactly? Why is exactly is someone's propensity to being rehabilitated inversely proportional to the severity of their offense?

Why should someone like that be rehabilitated even if they could be? Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean we need to do it.
 
Because that's by and large the best way to deal with it. From a utilitarian standpoint, rehabilitating criminals is much more successful than locking them up for 4 years, letting them become more hardened and dangerous, learn crime tactics from other inmates, then wreak more crime upon release. In terms of benefiting society rehabilitation, i.e. job training specifically, getting prisoners something to do so they aren't on the street ripping people off, is what works. 

The crimes and sentences we are discussing are a little more significant than 4 years.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#103

Posted 10 February 2015 - 09:12 PM

Were we? You never said anything about murder or rape 1 or qualified your statement as referring only to heinous mal in se crimes..

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#104

Posted 10 February 2015 - 09:51 PM

I'd say it's morally wrong to allow someone who's murdered someone else, to live a happy normal life. That is not justice. In fact, I think it's morally wrong to let someone live at all if they've murdered someone else, letting them live AND allowing them a happy normal life is just a sick joke.

So it diminishes the value we put in human life not to kill people for taking it? Not sure I follow the logic of that one.

The issue here, IMO, is that people address this from a very emotive perspective. Part of the problem with the criminal justice system in places like the US is that it places too much emphasis on the whims of the victim. I appreciate the emotional desire for justice to be seen to be served, but when that emotion trumps good practice it needs to be stopped.

"Justice" is a very subjective idea. It's shaped largely by our emotional whims and little else. Shouldn't we really be aspiring for a justice that can be quantified? Shouldn't the emphasis be on what's better for society as a whole, rather than what gratifies the emotional desires of people with a vested emotional interest in a particular case?

From a practical, empirical perspective, there's little in the way of coherent argument against the Scandinavian-style justice system. It has amongst the lowest reoffending rates in the world; it has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that even murderers can be rehabilitated and reintegrated for the good of wider society. I understand why people see the need for some element of retribution; some imaginary objective ethical line in the sand drawn at taking the life of another human. I just don't think it should have any real influence on the criminal justice system. Which isn't to say that there aren't instances where individual will never be safe to be released back into society, as there clearly are. Just that the concept of imprisonment without prospect of parole, reevaluation and the potential for integration is morally counter-intuitive.
 

The benefit that the rehabilitation of murderers has on society is so small and insignificant that it renders the argument virtually null and void anyways, that's assuming it has a benefit to society in the first place.

But surely, regardless of how small the overall benefit to society, it's still a societal benefit which wouldn't be achieved through whole life imprisonment or execution. Tell me, what matters in this instance more than the overall benefit to society? You say that it is "warped" and an "extreme interpretation of utilitarianism" but in reality it's anything but. An extreme interpretation of utilitarianism would be justifiably executing any criminal to prevent the theoretical harm they may cause to law abiding citizens. Placing the good of society over the emotionally charged whims of individuals with fairly clear prejudices on the subject is a noble thing, surely?
  • Irviding, Tyler, Melchior and 1 other like this

Dest45
  • Dest45

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2010

#105

Posted 10 February 2015 - 10:54 PM

Were we? You never said anything about murder or rape 1 or qualified your statement as referring only to heinous mal in se crimes..

the whole thread is about lifelong sentences. Its in the title.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#106

Posted 11 February 2015 - 04:57 AM Edited by Irviding, 11 February 2015 - 05:01 AM.

Were we? You never said anything about murder or rape 1 or qualified your statement as referring only to heinous mal in se crimes..

the whole thread is about lifelong sentences. Its in the title.

Then maybe you don't know much about the criminal justice system. In the US people can get lifelong imprisonment for non-heinous crimes. Drug dealing is a big one, California has the three strikes law which puts you in for life if you reach the third strike. So it's not just the heinous crimes that are relevant here. And even then, I think other than premedidated murder/rape-homicides especially of minors, even people convicted of manslaughter or murder 2 should have a chance at rehabilitation. I've seen it work before. A friend of mine from home shot and killed a 4 year old boy when he was 15 playing with a gun on the streets in Queens by accident, did 18 years in jail, and got out and now runs a gym and is an extremely motivational and helpful guy to the community, more than paying his debt and then some.

The issue here, IMO, is that people address this from a very emotive perspective. Part of the problem with the criminal justice system in places like the US is that it places too much emphasis on the whims of the victim. I appreciate the emotional desire for justice to be seen to be served, but when that emotion trumps good practice it needs to be stopped.

"Justice" is a very subjective idea. It's shaped largely by our emotional whims and little else. Shouldn't we really be aspiring for a justice that can be quantified? Shouldn't the emphasis be on what's better for society as a whole, rather than what gratifies the emotional desires of people with a vested emotional interest in a particular case?

Well, criminal law is inherently based in retribution. I would agree with that but I really don't support letting people convicted of rape-homicide, pedophiles, or murder 1 (in the US that is premeditated murder) be rehabilitated. They've done so much damage to society and are such a danger inherently that they just do not deserve it, especially people who exploit children and women.
  • Failure likes this

Share Sharqi
  • Share Sharqi

    Serial (time) killer

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#107

Posted 11 February 2015 - 02:43 PM

The simple existence of the notion that severity of punishment must be metered proportionately to the severity of defence, with no consideration of the context of the offence (and no justification beyond the simplistic [moral] juxtaposition of 'good' and 'bad') shows what I believe to be true. Prisons are a mechanism of dehumanisation; such as the propaganda machines of Nazi Germany decried the Jews, or the McCarthy campaign of 'Feds' against the 'Reds' destroyed the lives of many innocuous liberals. The justification of state ownership of human life cannot be accomplished if ordinary citizens in any way empathise with them. If citizens see themselves as pure and different to criminals, they will not only tolerate the most barbaric treatment of other humans, 'guilty' or 'innocent', but they will also drastically overestimate the distinctions between their worlds. By this I mean, you could go from freedom one day, to imprisonment the next. If you go around justifying things by their severity, this is completely illogical - all violations of the law are equally as severe in my opinion, if they are consciously undertaken, as they represent a rejection of the social order forthright. Murder is illegal. So is littering. However both offences are a product of the machinations of the state, so to defy one is tantamount to defying all laws, if it is one's expectation to receive no punishment and make no amends. I have, somewhat digressed from my initial point. What I intended to be my focus was that if an individual blindly follows the codes of morality set down by the state, then they are imprisoned by as much a measure of social control as the prison population - and too, blind to their constraint, and accepting of the state of affairs, they would tolerate the suffering of other humans without question yet seek to maintain their own 'unalienable' rights. Laughable.

  • Tyler likes this

Dest45
  • Dest45

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2010

#108

Posted 12 February 2015 - 03:25 AM Edited by Dest45, 12 February 2015 - 03:35 AM.

Were we? You never said anything about murder or rape 1 or qualified your statement as referring only to heinous mal in se crimes..

the whole thread is about lifelong sentences. Its in the title.
Then maybe you don't know much about the criminal justice system. In the US people can get lifelong imprisonment for non-heinous crimes. Drug dealing is a big one, California has the three strikes law which puts you in for life if you reach the third strike. So it's not just the heinous crimes that are relevant here. And even then, I think other than premedidated murder/rape-homicides especially of minors, even people convicted of manslaughter or murder 2 should have a chance at rehabilitation. I've seen it work before. A friend of mine from home shot and killed a 4 year old boy when he was 15 playing with a gun on the streets in Queens by accident, did 18 years in jail, and got out and now runs a gym and is an extremely motivational and helpful guy to the community, more than paying his debt and then some.

You are completely off topic from what I was talking about and what the thread is about.

I never said anything about heinous crimes. Anyone with a rightfully convicted and serving a lifelong sentence deserves it. Whether its dealing crack or raping and murdering. We know what is right and what is wrong. We need to stop babying people, if you f*ck up, you pay for it because the people you hurt paid for it anyone connected to them. That goes for drugs to murder.

Your friend served his sentence and hes out. Hes lucky he got a second chance and it wasn't a lifelong sentence.

I do think that prisons are inhumane I guess. Especially reading what the guy above posted but they are a more socially acceptable punishment than what I would prefer.

Share Sharqi
  • Share Sharqi

    Serial (time) killer

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#109

Posted 12 February 2015 - 04:49 AM

Do you feel that the complexity of life can be rendered to such moral absolutes as 'right' or 'wrong'? Are we not taught these things? The development of the superego, if you accept the psychoanalytic approach of Freud & Co., is that matters such as morality we only attain in later years and thus are not an intrinsic part of our psyche. Society describes everything for us so that we never need introspection, or to question our lives - and you have to wonder if it to the benefit of ourselves or another party if questions remain unasked. The saying knowledge power could be seen as meaning, whomsoever controls 'truth' is superior. I mean Americans are keen in their accounts of World War II to emphasise how they sent troops to help the Allies and won against Japan - they are less keen to recount why exactly they chose to Nuke massive civilian populations which I don't think any liberal country but America could justify with its massive propaganda machine.

A slight divergence from the subject there...apologies. 


Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#110

Posted 12 February 2015 - 04:59 AM

Were we? You never said anything about murder or rape 1 or qualified your statement as referring only to heinous mal in se crimes..

the whole thread is about lifelong sentences. Its in the title.

Then maybe you don't know much about the criminal justice system. In the US people can get lifelong imprisonment for non-heinous crimes. Drug dealing is a big one, California has the three strikes law which puts you in for life if you reach the third strike. So it's not just the heinous crimes that are relevant here. And even then, I think other than premedidated murder/rape-homicides especially of minors, even people convicted of manslaughter or murder 2 should have a chance at rehabilitation. I've seen it work before. A friend of mine from home shot and killed a 4 year old boy when he was 15 playing with a gun on the streets in Queens by accident, did 18 years in jail, and got out and now runs a gym and is an extremely motivational and helpful guy to the community, more than paying his debt and then some.

You are completely off topic from what I was talking about and what the thread is about.

I never said anything about heinous crimes. Anyone with a rightfully convicted and serving a lifelong sentence deserves it. Whether its dealing crack or raping and murdering. We know what is right and what is wrong. We need to stop babying people, if you f*ck up, you pay for it because the people you hurt paid for it anyone connected to them. That goes for drugs to murder.

Your friend served his sentence and hes out. Hes lucky he got a second chance and it wasn't a lifelong sentence.

I do think that prisons are inhumane I guess. Especially reading what the guy above posted but they are a more socially acceptable punishment than what I would prefer.


Sorry but you're just not making any sense. First you said you're not talking about low level crimes then you said you're only talking about bad crimes and now you said you're talking about any crime. If you think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars to lock people up for life for dealing crack then hey, that's your opinion. But at the end of the day, more often than not these people get out of prison after being in for x amount of years and just come out as even worse criminals who are more dangerous.

Share Sharqi
  • Share Sharqi

    Serial (time) killer

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#111

Posted 12 February 2015 - 05:20 AM Edited by Share Sharqi, 12 February 2015 - 05:21 AM.

Especially if they start young; prison is an environment where the easily indoctrinated can make a career out of criminality. Within its confines they are exposed to exactly the type of negative 'role models' that can make concrete their interest and involvement in crime in its various forms. Gang indoctrination, wilful or coerced, would be another problem as then individuals are constrained by the fear of negative consequence of betraying the gang and are more likely to prioritise this subculture over general society, increasing the likelihood of recidivism, as within those walls exists a 'family' of sorts, that which would be particularly appealing to those who come from troubled family backgrounds who constitute a significant proportion of the youth prison population.

  • Irviding and Melchior like this

Dest45
  • Dest45

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2010

#112

Posted 21 February 2015 - 11:12 AM

Were we? You never said anything about murder or rape 1 or qualified your statement as referring only to heinous mal in se crimes..

the whole thread is about lifelong sentences. Its in the title.
Then maybe you don't know much about the criminal justice system. In the US people can get lifelong imprisonment for non-heinous crimes. Drug dealing is a big one, California has the three strikes law which puts you in for life if you reach the third strike. So it's not just the heinous crimes that are relevant here. And even then, I think other than premedidated murder/rape-homicides especially of minors, even people convicted of manslaughter or murder 2 should have a chance at rehabilitation. I've seen it work before. A friend of mine from home shot and killed a 4 year old boy when he was 15 playing with a gun on the streets in Queens by accident, did 18 years in jail, and got out and now runs a gym and is an extremely motivational and helpful guy to the community, more than paying his debt and then some.
You are completely off topic from what I was talking about and what the thread is about.

I never said anything about heinous crimes. Anyone with a rightfully convicted and serving a lifelong sentence deserves it. Whether its dealing crack or raping and murdering. We know what is right and what is wrong. We need to stop babying people, if you f*ck up, you pay for it because the people you hurt paid for it anyone connected to them. That goes for drugs to murder.

Your friend served his sentence and hes out. Hes lucky he got a second chance and it wasn't a lifelong sentence.

I do think that prisons are inhumane I guess. Especially reading what the guy above posted but they are a more socially acceptable punishment than what I would prefer.
Sorry but you're just not making any sense. First you said you're not talking about low level crimes then you said you're only talking about bad crimes and now you said you're talking about any crime. If you think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars to lock people up for life for dealing crack then hey, that's your opinion. But at the end of the day, more often than not these people get out of prison after being in for x amount of years and just come out as even worse criminals who are more dangerous.
I don't like the whole idea of prison. My solution would be a lot quicker, more permanent and less costly. Ahh the good ol' days.

Share Sharqi
  • Share Sharqi

    Serial (time) killer

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#113

Posted 21 February 2015 - 11:42 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Were we? You never said anything about murder or rape 1 or qualified your statement as referring only to heinous mal in se crimes..

the whole thread is about lifelong sentences. Its in the title.
Then maybe you don't know much about the criminal justice system. In the US people can get lifelong imprisonment for non-heinous crimes. Drug dealing is a big one, California has the three strikes law which puts you in for life if you reach the third strike. So it's not just the heinous crimes that are relevant here. And even then, I think other than premedidated murder/rape-homicides especially of minors, even people convicted of manslaughter or murder 2 should have a chance at rehabilitation. I've seen it work before. A friend of mine from home shot and killed a 4 year old boy when he was 15 playing with a gun on the streets in Queens by accident, did 18 years in jail, and got out and now runs a gym and is an extremely motivational and helpful guy to the community, more than paying his debt and then some.
You are completely off topic from what I was talking about and what the thread is about.

I never said anything about heinous crimes. Anyone with a rightfully convicted and serving a lifelong sentence deserves it. Whether its dealing crack or raping and murdering. We know what is right and what is wrong. We need to stop babying people, if you f*ck up, you pay for it because the people you hurt paid for it anyone connected to them. That goes for drugs to murder.

Your friend served his sentence and hes out. Hes lucky he got a second chance and it wasn't a lifelong sentence.

I do think that prisons are inhumane I guess. Especially reading what the guy above posted but they are a more socially acceptable punishment than what I would prefer.
Sorry but you're just not making any sense. First you said you're not talking about low level crimes then you said you're only talking about bad crimes and now you said you're talking about any crime. If you think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars to lock people up for life for dealing crack then hey, that's your opinion. But at the end of the day, more often than not these people get out of prison after being in for x amount of years and just come out as even worse criminals who are more dangerous.
I don't like the whole idea of prison. My solution would be a lot quicker, more permanent and less costly. Ahh the good ol' days.

 

How long will it be though in such a penal system, before the floccinaucinihilipilification of human life by the state (and the power it possesses) should result in totalitarianism, or at very least, many more instances of miscarriages of justice.

Also - the good old days? With stocks and stonings, guillotines and dismemberment, the rack and water torture, stake burnings, and hangings (or lynchings). Those were the good old days? I tell you, you are welcome to go back there, life expectancy was pretty sh*t back then, maybe seeing someone lose a hand for petty theft might change your perspective.


S0lo
  • S0lo

    Persona Non Grata

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2014
  • Olympics
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#114

Posted 27 February 2015 - 09:25 AM

While our justice system here in Switzerland is traditionally a rather liberal one, geared towards rehabilitation and re-integration by means of education, therapy and the successive  reduction of the security level one is kept under, we also have the highly controversial law for "Lifelong custody for untreatable, extremely dangerous sexual predators and violent offenders" that has been introduced in 2004, based on a public initiative in reaction to the rape and murder of a young woman at the hands of a man who was on furlough from a sentence he got for 11 rapes and 2 rape-murders.The man had previously been on furlough for more than a hundred times without any cause for concern.

 

The law states that, should the forensic assessment of an offender classify him as extremely violent and untreatable, he has to remain in custody for the rest of his natural life after serving his prison sentence. No furlough or parole are to be permitted. A new evaluation of the offender is forbidden unless new scientific findings indicate that the offender could be cured.

 

This ludicrous law has so many inherent flaws and misconceptions, it really is an object of shame for many of us. Already just the assumption that there is a scientific consensus regarding the treatability, respectively the lack thereof, of certain disorders, is nothing but just that - an assumption. To take it as a base for the most extreme form of incarceration a country deals out is not only unscientific and unprofessional, but also just inhumane and cruel. The law also puts the faith of an accused offender in to the hands of only 2 expert evaluators that are neither officers of the law nor independently supervised, a process unprecedented in our legal history, and rightfully so. The chance alone, that the bias of 1 or 2 individuals could result in wrongful conviction of a man to life without parole, is irreconcilable with the principles of a state under the rule of law.

 

But then how did it come to pass? The reason paradoxically lies in the freedom of our citizens to influence the legislative process by means of public initiatives, which shines light on one of the fundamental flaws of direct democracy; its susceptibility to populist politics that work people's emotions rather than their democratic responsibility for a fair and measured judgement. There is a very good reason that the monopoly on violence in democratic states still lies solely in the hands of the government, and that is that the people are not to be trusted to react to horrendous crimes with the required distance and objectivity. This is to be witnessed nowadays still, for example, in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, where non-governmental so-called "community police" forces regularly lynch people accused of actual crimes such as murder, rape, theft, etc., but also of imagined acts of witchcraft. The culprits of such lynchings almost never face judgement, as sticking up for offenders, especially "witches", would put the witnesses themselves under suspicion of being complicit with the accused.
 
While these extreme forms of punishment differ in many ways from such a thing as lifelong custody, so is the impulse that drives us towards pursuing each very much the same. We may, here in Europe and the USA, live in secular democracies, but our views on morality are still conditioned by thousands of years of religious rule that attributes one's wrongdoings to some kind of evil within him that can only be contained or destroyed alongside the host. What once was attributed to demons or the devil himself is now identified as a sickness of the mind, and as true as that seems to be, according to all we know about the human psyche, the conclusion that it can not be healed is perhaps much more a projection of our fears than actual fact.

BRITLAND
  • BRITLAND

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012

#115

Posted 28 February 2015 - 09:30 PM

This is quite an interesting topic for me, having just read the autobiography of a man whose life changed immeasurably  for the better inside the US prison system. I would love to see the UK move more towards the Scandinavian concept of prisons, but I can't see it happening any time soon.


I can see Scotland having the Scandinavian prison system fully within 20 years, they seem to be slowly moving in that direction regarding justice.

England & Wales on the other hand will never accept it, well maybe Wales if their Assembly gets powers over law and justice but I cant see that happening in the near future either. Unsure about Northern Ireland though, prob. the same as the latter.

RavingWithJesus
  • RavingWithJesus

    Gangsta

  • The Yakuza
  • Joined: 17 Feb 2014
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#116

Posted 09 April 2015 - 05:54 PM

I don't believe it is inhumane. If someone has committed murder, or some other foul crime (for example, that guy who was responsible for the Boston marathon bombings, who was just found guilty on all charges), they deserve life in prison. He may get the death penalty, which is much more inhumane. As heinous as that incident was, or any crime that leads to life in prison or the death penalty, life in prison seems much worse for the criminal, and less inhumane for us as a society. 

  • Gay Tony likes this

Deafiroth
  • Deafiroth

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2014
  • Canada

#117

Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:05 AM

My opinion on jail and life inprisonment: if you steal things, break stuff, hit people, or hit children, you should have to pay the consequence. If you murder someone, you should be shot dead where you stand. I have no sympathy, nor any tolerance for killers. If you think it just boils things down to revenge, then look at things from the victims viewpoint. Say for example, your spouse was murdered enroute to work. You will never see that person again, you will never experience new things with that person again. And you will only remember that persons death. If the killer is given life, he/she still learns, still breathes, and can still get out and be mostly free. Your spouse never will, He/she is dead. If that happened to me, I'd want the killer dead.

Zook
  • Zook

    Banter

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2008
  • United-Kingdom

#118

Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:44 AM

He/she is dead. If that happened to me, I'd want the killer dead.

So would I. That's why we do not let the victims or the family members of the victims have a say in the punishment given to the offenders. Emotions have no place in discussions about punishment, or in any debate really, they make us irrational. 

 

You say "you should" a lot but you never really justify why you believe that and no one is saying there is no consequences, but if someone can be rehabilitated why shouldn't they be released so they can  contribute to society again?  

  • Ari Gold likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#119

Posted 06 May 2015 - 05:35 AM

 

He/she is dead. If that happened to me, I'd want the killer dead.

So would I. That's why we do not let the victims or the family members of the victims have a say in the punishment given to the offenders. Emotions have no place in discussions about punishment, or in any debate really, they make us irrational. 

 

You say "you should" a lot but you never really justify why you believe that and no one is saying there is no consequences, but if someone can be rehabilitated why shouldn't they be released so they can  contribute to society again?  

 

That's just not true, though. Victims and family members of victims routinely have a say in the punishment for offenders. Either informally through making their feelings known to the prosecutor, or formally through testifying at the trial of the defendant. There are tons of cases of victims' family members saying they don't want the death penalty for the perpetrator, just as there are cases of victims' families fighting for the prosecutor to pursue the death penalty. Then you've got some who give mercy to the perpetrator which has a significant effect on what the prosecutors pursue, from murders to muggings to car thefts to identity theft, etc. 

 

This idea that emotion and the opinions of those affected shouldn't have any bearing on criminal law is sort of silly. Whether you like it or not, criminal law is, and has been throughout history, primarily focused in retribution. 


CrysisAverted
  • CrysisAverted

    Formerly Sh4d0wX32111

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • None
  • [Snapmatic & R* Editor Awards 2015] Best Unedited
    April Fools Winner 2015

#120

Posted 06 May 2015 - 06:02 AM

inhumane treatment for inhumane action

  • undertaker fan, Share Sharqi and Midnight Hitman like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users