Debate thread (revived)

[CoBB]

The point of punishment in our society is, or at least should be, to engage a change in a person.

When you have to punish someone, it's usually too late. When someone commits a crime, they are perfectly aware that they can be caught and 'rewarded' accordingly in most cases. Whether this happens or not in the end simply can't have a major effect on their personality, because it is expected. Prison does little more than keep unwanted people in isolation.

But it does illustrate a sharp contrast between punishment by death and punishment by emprisonment. The time can not be given back, but the freedom can be.

It's not the same freedom... You can hardly consider yourself just as free as before if you need counseling or medication to keep sane for the rest of your life.

The magnitude of the punishment can be appropriate without having to resort to such drastic measures, that's my point.

What do you think is equivalent to an execution in this context? A lifer?

[Arcane WIzard]

When you have to punish someone, it's usually too late. When someone commits a crime, they are perfectly aware that they can be caught and 'rewarded' accordingly in most cases. Whether this happens or not in the end simply can't have a major effect on their personality, because it is expected. Prison does little more than keep unwanted people in isolation.

I don't think they usually want to be caught.

It's not the same freedom... You can hardly consider yourself just as free as before if you need counseling or medication to keep sane for the rest of your life.

From the law's point of view it is, and it's not a problem of law if they don't use the freedom they lawfully have.

What do you think is equivalent to an execution in this context? A lifer?

With the possiblity of getting out early for good behaviour and passing psych tests or whatever sounds fine to me.

[CoBB]

I don't think they usually want to be caught.

Neither do I, but why are you saying that?

From the law's point of view it is, and it's not a problem of law if they don't use the freedom they lawfully have.

That's a wonderful justification indeed. I'm a wreck, but it's more important that the system has a clean conscience. Aren't we discussing the weaknesses of the judiciary system by chance?

With the possiblity of getting out early for good behaviour and passing psych tests or whatever sounds fine to me.

I don't believe in fairy tales. What's the correlation between the behaviour inside and outside prison? While locked away you are forced to behave yourself, but it doesn't guarantee anything for the future--the constraints vanish when you get out. And tests... Well, those who commit the most serious crimes seem to be quite considerate and calm in many cases, as far as I can tell from interviews with such people. Rapists, torturers and murderers in the wild and still completely normal when they have to. They would pass such tests faster than much less harmful petty criminals.

[Arcane WIzard]

I don't think they usually want to be caught.

Neither do I, but why are you saying that?

You said that the learning isn't part of the judicial system because criminals do not care about the punishment, even expect it. I think they do care, or they wouldn't mind getting caught.

From the law's point of view it is, and it's not a problem of law if they don't use the freedom they lawfully have.

That's a wonderful justification indeed. I'm a wreck, but it's more important that the system has a clean conscience. Aren't we discussing the weaknesses of the judiciary system by chance?

I thought we where talking about the death penalty. And in that light, I don't think that the consequences of unjustified emprisonment for a limited period of time are worse than death. Nor that death should be the punishment because it's equally bad as life emprisonment, if it was.

I've already expressed that the justice system is inherently flawed in it's approach to change. (but that does not mean that it doesn't work at all, just saying there are better ways according to modern psychology as well as old religions, which I agree with)

With the possiblity of getting out early for good behaviour and passing psych tests or whatever sounds fine to me.

I don't believe in fairy tales. What's the correlation between the behaviour inside and outside prison? While locked away you are forced to behave yourself, but it doesn't guarantee anything for the future--the constraints vanish when you get out. And tests... Well, those who commit the most serious crimes seem to be quite considerate and calm in many cases, as far as I can tell from interviews with such people. Rapists, torturers and murderers in the wild and still completely normal when they have to. They would pass such tests faster than much less harmful petty criminals.

I very much doubt that significant number of them pass them at all under false pretences. There are people's who's whole job it is to analyse the psychological state of criminals, I'm sure they know what they're doing. Is that number that does (or would? I think this is already how it works) get out only to kill (and, assumingly, get caught) again negated by the death penalty more than the amount by which no death penalty improves social safety?

[CoBB]

You said that the learning isn't part of the judicial system because criminals do not care about the punishment, even expect it. I think they do care, or they wouldn't mind getting caught.

I didn't say that. What I meant is that punishment is no surprise to them given that they are caught, hence it has no educational value. If it had, even the prospect of it would have been an excellent deterrent. And frankly, speaking for myself, it's not the possible measures that prevent me from breaking the law but my own morals.

I thought we where talking about the death penalty.

And the only real counter-argument so far was that the system isn't infallible.

And in that light, I don't think that the consequences of unjustified emprisonment for a limited period of time are worse than death.

I don't think so either, but by saying that only death penalty is irreversible you are degrading another serious issue.

Nor that death should be the punishment because it's equally bad as life emprisonment, if it was.

No, because just as you leave a chance for the innocent, you also leave that chance for the guilty. And for the guilty it's a winning position: if they already got the most severe punishment law can provide, you can't punish them any more. Why would they not do anything to break free, including killing guards?

I very much doubt that significant number of them pass them at all under false pretences. There are people's who's whole job it is to analyse the psychological state of criminals, I'm sure they know what they're doing.

Very nice, so where are these people when the innocent are convicted? If they can't even tell whether someone did something in the past, how could they ever predict the future?

Is that number that does (or would? I think this is already how it works) get out only to kill (and, assumingly, get caught) again negated by the death penalty more than the amount by which no death penalty improves social safety?

We are trying to compare two (fortunately) marginal quantities again, if these things can be quantified at all. I still don't see much point in entering the world of probabilities.

[Arcane WIzard]

I didn't say that. What I meant is that punishment is no surprise to them given that they are caught, hence it has no educational value. If it had, even the prospect of it would have been an excellent deterrent. And frankly, speaking for myself, it's not the possible measures that prevent me from breaking the law but my own morals.

Then how would you justify having these measures at all, for any crime? Surely if nobody cares about the punishment then any crime might as well have the death penalty, they're not going to learn anything from it anyway. Jail time would only be temporary and just have them start over again when they're released.

And in that light, I don't think that the consequences of unjustified emprisonment for a limited period of time are worse than death.

I don't think so either, but by saying that only death penalty is irreversible you are degrading another serious issue.

Nothing can be reversed, which is why I said "corrected" and I still think it's the only thing that can't be. Pardoned might be a better word for what I mean.

Nor that death should be the punishment because it's equally bad as life emprisonment, if it was.

No, because just as you leave a chance for the innocent, you also leave that chance for the guilty. And for the guilty it's a winning position: if they already got the most severe punishment law can provide, you can't punish them any more. Why would they not do anything to break free, including killing guards?

Because they will be caught and given even more punishment. They'll never have had the most punishment they can recieve untill the day they die.

I very much doubt that significant number of them pass them at all under false pretences. There are people's who's whole job it is to analyse the psychological state of criminals, I'm sure they know what they're doing.

Very nice, so where are these people when the innocent are convicted? If they can't even tell whether someone did something in the past, how could they ever predict the future?

Good point, I don't know, never heard of any being present in court though I know they're used to find criminals and build a case against them. Still, psychological tests have to be conducted by psychologists, whilst none have to be present during the conviction as far as I know. So that would answer your question, without discrediting those professionals. I may ask a friend who is going to study this very profession what's up with this (or maybe not:P).

Is that number that does (or would? I think this is already how it works) get out only to kill (and, assumingly, get caught) again negated by the death penalty more than the amount by which no death penalty improves social safety?

We are trying to compare two (fortunately) marginal quantities again, if these things can be quantified at all. I still don't see much point in entering the world of probabilities.

But probabilities applied to large samples turn into results, averages, numbers. A relative state of comparison for what is more beneficial to society. But we can skip this if we agree these numbers are marginal.

[CoBB]

Then how would you justify having these measures at all, for any crime?

Wait a minute, purely material crimes can be nicely handled by fines. Imprisoning is a way to prevent crime temporarily. If someone abused you physically or in any way, it's surely good to know they are safely locked at least for a while. Note that I don't think any kind of punishment is necessary on a theoretical level, where everyone is nice and friendly and never harms anyone else. Law is just an ad hoc answer (not matter how long an evolution it went through) to a practical problem, i. e. that people tend to get in the way of each other.

Education should be preventive, and it is hardly effective on grown-ups.

Jail time would only be temporary and just have them start over again when they're released.

There is no need for the conditional mood here, this does actually happen in many cases. Sad but true.

Nothing can be reversed, which is why I said "corrected" and I still think it's the only thing that can't be. Pardoned might be a better word for what I mean.

Let's say our wrongfully convicted gets blinded during a brawl while in the prison. Can that be 'corrected'? Sure, it's a polarising illustration, but substitute any life-long physical or mental defect.

Because they will be caught and given even more punishment.

Or not, because they learned the lesson and the authorities aren't omnipotent either.

They'll never have had the most punishment they can recieve untill the day they die.

Nope. There is a most severe punishment allowed by law in any civilised country, which is either a lifer with heavy guarding or execution in most places.

Good point, I don't know, never heard of any being present in court though I know they're used to find criminals and build a case against them. Still, psychological tests have to be conducted by psychologists, whilst none have to be present during the conviction as far as I know. So that would answer your question, without discrediting those professionals.

Well, I'd expect them to prepare a psychological profile of the defendant in such serious cases, which is surely performed outside court and is filed as evidence. I don't see how their physical presence at the court is relevant here.

But probabilities applied to large samples turn into results, averages, numbers.

Other things being equal yes, but here we have so many more important factors that the impact we'd like to determine is absorbed by the error margin.

[Arcane WIzard]

Ok, so you think the death penalty should be used because it is more practical than lifetime emprisonment, or not?

[necro]

First and foremost, the following additional steps should be added to the judicial system:
+after a jury trial, a review of the defense provided
+after a trial, a review for jurry bias
+a review of the evidence every N span of time to seem if there should be a change in the punishment
+prisons should be an isolated community that have increased supervision but alow people to get jobs, have a life, and other wise have some quality existance
+prisoners should have their crimes anonomous, why? To prevent those very things. Wardens would obviously know to a degree how 'dangerous' they are precieved to be...but not what prytell they did so as to prevent horrible things from being done
+the severity of prisson terms should be based both on crime and current state of life

Now then, lets just put these two hypothetical scenarios for Johnathan Doe, wrongfuly accused of having killed two people via shooting with a high calibur revolver, one shot each. The defense was poor for such an upstanding citizen...but the prosecution capitalised on the fact that the victims were both little children shot while sleeping under his foster care. Now then:

John Doe is killed wrongfully, now that he is dead he has the following options of things to do with his life:
+rot in a wooden cascket

Lets say John Doe is imprissoned wrongfully, he has the following options of things to do with his life:
+Hope to be aquited
+hope to improve himself and by being a positive influence in the jail
+take up art, literature, music, weight lifting, etc
+make friends
+not make friends
+see his family every monday and friday, and go to bingo night every saturday
+etc

[Leumas]

+after a jury trial, a review of the defense provided

I think there is a fundemental flaw that you have fallen into by watching Law and Order (or some other show). The defence should not be rexamined but the procecution. The person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. So the simple thing is to see if the evidence can prove them guilty. But im pretty sure that the additional costs SOMEONE was talking about earlier are used for that (or supposed to be). Oh and the defense review would be done by the ethics commities. The sad fact that it is not effective won't be changed by anything you have suggested sadly enough.

after a trial, a review for jurry bias

What the HECK?!!!!! YOU ARE BIASED. EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD IS BIASED! ITS a pointless task that will lead nowhere. That is nothing more than a chance to point out that racism is still SO AWFUL and that America is the next NAZI germany. Its bogus. That is what jurry selection is for. And who will do this review anyways. Will we now tape jurry rooms? Will we call in other people to be jurries to the jurries? What if they are biased :SHOCK:?! There is no solution to natural biases, but that is the point of BOTH jurry selection AND appeals. *sorry, that is a Big Issue I deal with along with PC and I have a tendency to start off angry*

+a review of the evidence every N span of time to seem if there should be a change in the punishment

Im just confused by this wording. Honestly. Who will review? How many more layers of judges will we add? *removing the death penalty (and "mandatory" laws) the judge is the ONLY one who has say in the sentence.

+prisons should be an isolated community that have increased supervision but alow people to get jobs, have a life, and other wise have some quality existance
+prisoners should have their crimes anonomous, why? To prevent those very things. Wardens would obviously know to a degree how 'dangerous' they are precieved to be...but not what prytell they did so as to prevent horrible things from being done

first, the second is defeated by the first. The two are mutually exclusive, who else could live in the community BUT criminals. They won't have lives, it will be a prison with a TV show of reality inside. And about the anonomous crimes... you are missing A point (not all) of justice and the reason it even exists. IT is the Society that has been violated and is replying/punishing. But if the society does not know who or why they were punished that is not justice from a society but a dictatorship. They are forced there because of a reason, and no-one is allowed to know what it is. That leads to a stigma worse than that of a pickpocket will get. A murder is now equal to a person who is serving 2 weeks.
And the 'dangerous' aspect would make the wardens guilty of prejudice/biases just for doing their jobs. Great job destroying prejudice by forcing others to become prejudice so you won't be.

+the severity of prisson terms should be based both on crime and current state of life

... Yeah I agree with that one!


Oh I also agree with the preference for life over death, but i think that you are taking a great example (theory) and destroying it by painting a picture of prison that makes college look like hell.

[necro]

a review as in to see if proper defense was provided and a review to see that the jurry followed the law and based their decision on evidence and not peronal bias and misunderstaning. For instance, there is a man in prison for life because he allegedly killed a man with his friend by stangling and then cuting up him. Blood was EVERYWHERE, the victim was absolutely shreaded up and had been strangled with a belt and robbed. There was no blood on the car, on the clothes, no evidence at all to link the people to the crime. The personal in jail is there soley due to the confecsions of the freind (who is also in jail for the same 'crime') and even though a expert testified that a person could convince them self they did a crime they didn't and that this happens mopre than rarely. Further, the interogation of the friend fed him details which he would then say he did, something that is very much against protocol. The biased (or should I say ignorance) jurry whom were all uneducated country bumpkins convicted him because they felt a person wouldn't confess without reason and failed to accept the truth that their preconcieved notion was false.

a review every so many years= review of the evidence every N span of time to seem if there should be a change in the punishment (honestly, how do you not know N means a variable number?)

As far as the anominty in jails, if some one is a statury rapest (lets say the girl they banged was 17) he may very well be beaton to death because of that label. Criminals are criminals, as far as knowing more than that, why would you need to unless it puts you at risk.

and as far as the last one goes: kill a bunch of people by torturing them to death and kill a few other inmates and you get isolitary solation for life, shoot someone who stabbed your sister you get only a small amount of time out of your cell and your cell has very few ammenities, servered your time well and seem to be getting better then your life is almost like a normal life inside of jail and you get to go outside, make money through works programs, etc. The wole idea here is that if people need to be punished, a hard term of jail will be just that but by alowing them to transition their way back into a normal life you will have made them less likely to be back or come out of jail broken and destroyed inside.

[necro]

well, why all the stilled tounges all of a sudden?

[CoBB]

Ok, so you think the death penalty should be used because it is more practical than lifetime emprisonment, or not?

Not exactly. I'd say death penalty should be an option in some cases where there is absolutely no doubt (I repeat, there are cases like that) and the crime is so severe that we absolutely don't want to reintegrate those people any more, hence keeping them around would make no sense.

[CompWiz]

Ok, so you think the death penalty should be used because it is more practical than lifetime emprisonment, or not?

Not exactly. I'd say death penalty should be an option in some cases where there is absolutely no doubt (I repeat, there are cases like that) and the crime is so severe that we absolutely don't want to reintegrate those people any more, hence keeping them around would make no sense.

but if they have life in jail, they could become a better person. They would never be allowed out, but they could die knowing they became a better person. If you believe in an afterlife, they could have a chance make it into heaven. Life imprisonment costs less than the death penalty, so it would also save the gov some money.

[CoBB]

but if they have life in jail, they could become a better person.

They should have thought about that earlier, ideally before doing something horrendous. Their chances were much better beforehand. And their becoming a 'better person' is of no use to anyone. Besides, if you are not given the chance to be a bad person, being 'good' is of no value--it's fake.

Life imprisonment costs less than the death penalty, so it would also save the gov some money.

This is still not a solid fact...