2
   

Don't Kill or Cage Them...Banish Them!

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:18 pm
As JTT as suggested on another thread, we need to consider the economics of the criminal justice system.

Since all of the myriad of appeal opportunities provided to criminals sentenced to death actually makes life imprisonment a less expensive solution, we need to think of something else.

I think we can look to Georgia for guidance.

The Georgia SC just ruled that a criminal can be, effectively, banished; or at least banned from all counties save one within the state.

Let's build on this.

Now each state is going to have some upfront costs of relocating all the law abiding citizens of its single most useless county to new homes, but that's got to be cheaper than long term incarceration or attempting to fry someone.

Each of the 50 states designates their own "Armpit" County as, in effect, a penal colony.

Convicted criminals are then banished to Armpit County.

Additional funds will be necessary to build electrified fences along the borders of Armpit County, but again, much cheaper than prisons.

Call it the Escape From New York solution.

Some sort of society will develop within each of these penal counties, and since those banished to them will have proven they won't live within the restraints of our society, they get to live within one built by their own kind of miscreant.

Seems like justice to me.

Clever state officials will be certain to designate a county Armpit County that does not border bodies of water. Roads and railroad tracks can be diverted as necessary and Air National Guards can patrol the air-space above the penal county.

Presumably the denizens of Armpit County will be able to establish some sort of rudimentary economy and can arrange for trading at gates in the fences that are guarded by armed forces. It may take them a little while to move from a predatory economy to something actually productive, but they'll have time.

Banishment will, unless for life, have a set term, and when the term runs, the criminal, assuming survival, presents him or herself at one of the gates, and after verification, is allowed to emigrate to any place in the state of country.

States like California and Washington can provide the denizens of their Armpit counties with text books and AV equipment so they can school themselves and move closer to rehabilitation.

In all likelihood, the environment won't be that much different than what exists in conventional prisons, but taxpayers won't have the burden of feeding, clothing and separating criminals.

Let's do away with the death penalty all together. Do we really want The State to have the power to kill its citizens? Besides it will make a lot of people happy if we do.

I doubt it will have an deterrence advantage. If you're stupid enough to commit crimes that will put you in prison or fry you, being banished isn't going to phase you, but it certainly won't be seen as any cushier than the current system.

Don't kill them, or cage them like animals... banish them!

They get to keep their lives (as long as they can) and we don't besmirch our society with their blood --- or pay for their upkeep.

Who knows, we may even have 50 little Australias popping up around the country.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,204 • Replies: 55
No top replies

 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 09:53 pm
I think Australia worked better, since when children were born, as offspring of the original prisoners that were "transported," they stayed in Australia and developed the island nation.

If this concept is adopted, then children born in these counties would want to move to the other counties.

But, with the right amount of freebies, it may just keep a contented group of people in its environs?

Then there's the possibility that the "culture" developed in these counties would become "cool" in the eyes of young people in the other counties, and imitated. You do know where baggie pants came from?

Actually, the reverse has always existed, where each state has its own exclusive county for the wealthy and society families.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 10:26 pm
Foofie wrote:
I think Australia worked better, since when children were born, as offspring of the original prisoners that were "transported," they stayed in Australia and developed the island nation.

Quote:


The convicts didn't direct the development of Australian society, they were merely coopted as the labour to help build it. They had the added incentive of becoming 'ticket of leave' men if they cooperated (ie free after a period of servitude).

I think the idea sucks because

a) punishment is the same regardless of the nastiness of the crime and building on this:
b) there is every chance that the meaker will suffer much more than the stronger, even though this unlikely to have any relation to the seriousness of their crime.
c) I'd prefer at least some attempt at rehabilitation - some cons can actually reform with help and support. Your proposal doesn't say how one would 'graduate' from the proposal.
d) Finn thinks it's a good idea.

More about Australian Convicts from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6864292/ANCESTRY-COM-LAUNCHES-RECORDS-OF.html :

Stealing sheep or wool or cloth in 18th- and 19th-century England could land you a minimum seven-year sentence at an Australian penal colony, according to Ancestry.com's newest online collection of Australian convicts records. For those interested in uncovering the criminal ancestors lurking in their past, the world's largest online resource for family history today released the largest collection of Australian convict records, indexed and searchable online for the first time. Records detail the some 165,000 convicts transported to Australia from 1788 to 1868.

An estimated 22 percent of Australians are descended from these British exiles. Their sentences served, many convicts remained Down Under, becoming Australia's first western settlers.

The British government deemed transportation, as the practice was known, just punishment for a mixed bag of crimes from marrying secretly to burning clothes. Although "felony," "larceny" and "burglary" described the overwhelming majority of crimes, a few records include juicy details, such as, "obtaining money by false pretences," "stealing heifers" and "privately stealing in a shop." The convict records typically contain convict's name, date and place of sentencing, length of sentence -- usually 7 years, 14 years or life -- and, sometimes, the crime committed.

"By today's standards, many of these crimes are minor misdemeanors or are no longer illegal, and the severity of punishments seem ludicrous," said Megan Smolenyak, Chief Family Historian for Ancestry.com. "No wonder Australians consider a convict in their family tree a badge of honor and seek to uncover the amusing, quirky and outrageous details in their family's 'criminal' past."

But as notorious as the Australian convicts might be, England first disposed of its felons in the American colonies. High crime rates and over-crowded jails led the English government to transport small-time criminals to British colonies. By 1775, England had shipped some 50,000 convicts to America. They worked as indentured servants, typically on tobacco plantations in Virginia and Maryland.

Tired of England deporting unwanted citizens to America, Benjamin Franklin suggested sending rattlesnakes to England in return -- a sentiment shared by many Colonial leaders. The American Revolution ended convict banishment to the United States, and the British began shipping their criminals some 15,000 miles to newly discovered Australia.

Unique Attributes of Australian-Bound Convicts:

* A vast majority of Australia-bound convicts were English, Irish and Scottish men between the ages of 20 and 24

* Women accounted for some 15 percent of Australian convicts but were outnumbered by men, six to one

* 39 percent of male and 35 percent of female convicts had no prior convictions

* The oldest convict transported was approximately 60, and the youngest nine

* 1,321 convicts were from other parts of the British Empire

* The majority of convicts were illiterate and convicted for crimes of poverty (theft)

* In the first years of transportation, convict ships were unsanitary and disease ridden; conditions improved in the later years

* Convicts typically served their sentence building roads, bridges and buildings or for free settlers

* When transportation ended, convicts made up 40 percent of Australia's English-speaking population
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 10:54 pm
Personally, I think that's one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. But, hey, that's just me.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 11:13 pm
NickFun wrote:
Personally, I think that's one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. But, hey, that's just me.


Yep, that's just you.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 05:22 am
If they could all be put in Dallas I might consider the idea.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 05:37 am
lot's of room on the moon
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 09:34 pm
djjd62 wrote:
lot's of room on the moon


A penal colony on the moon - good idea!
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 09:42 pm
The idea of banishing a criminal is not new.
My wifes (that still sounds strange) brother Was convicted of a crime here in Ky.
As part of his sentence he has been banished from Ky for 2 years.
He is not allowed to be anywhere in the state.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/4646/Banishment.html

Quote:


Quote:
Kentucky and Arkansas also continue to use banishment for certain crimes. Arkansas's constitution prohibits banishment "from the state," but it allows intrastate banishment. In 2000, a Corbin, Kentucky, judge exiled from the entire state a person who had been convicted of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Florida judges have been known to address prostitution by meting out a five-year banishment sentence and buying the convicted prostitute a one-way ticket out of town.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jul, 2008 11:30 pm
mysteryman wrote:
The idea of banishing a criminal is not new.
My wifes (that still sounds strange) brother Was convicted of a crime here in Ky.
As part of his sentence he has been banished from Ky for 2 years.
He is not allowed to be anywhere in the state.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/4646/Banishment.html

Quote:


Quote:
Kentucky and Arkansas also continue to use banishment for certain crimes. Arkansas's constitution prohibits banishment "from the state," but it allows intrastate banishment. In 2000, a Corbin, Kentucky, judge exiled from the entire state a person who had been convicted of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Florida judges have been known to address prostitution by meting out a five-year banishment sentence and buying the convicted prostitute a one-way ticket out of town.


Perhaps not, but it's not very civil minded of KY to banish its criminals to one of the remaining 49 other states.

They have to go somewhere.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 12:30 am
Re: Don't Kill or Cage Them...Banish Them!
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Don't kill them, or cage them like animals... banish them!

They get to keep their lives (as long as they can) and we don't besmirch our society with their blood --- or pay for their upkeep.


I've long advocated something similar. Mine is a replacement for the death penalty only (so nothing but life sentences) and involved two islands (one for men and one for women, no offspring should be condemned to live in these societies) where people judged unwilling to conform to society's most fundamental social contracts are expelled from the society and given their own.

Their society is given no more assistance than starting provisions (such as seed and food to eat while you wait for it to grow) and it's survive or die. No hand holding from the society whose bridge you just burnt.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 12:51 am
Re: Don't Kill or Cage Them...Banish Them!
Robert Gentel wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Don't kill them, or cage them like animals... banish them!

They get to keep their lives (as long as they can) and we don't besmirch our society with their blood --- or pay for their upkeep.


I've long advocated something similar. Mine is a replacement for the death penalty only (so nothing but life sentences) and involved two islands (one for men and one for women, no offspring should be condemned to live in these societies) where people judged unwilling to conform to society's most fundamental social contracts are expelled from the society and given their own.

Their society is given no more assistance than starting provisions (such as seed and food to eat while you wait for it to grow) and it's survive or die. No hand holding from the society whose bridge you just burnt.



Likely works out just as death penalty for the squeamish...with the addition of hideous torment while you wait to die.


And...what do you do as you drop off more and more people? Keep seeding, or just let them starve if the society predictable fails? Or put them there and watch them being killed and eaten as you depart?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 01:04 am
Re: Don't Kill or Cage Them...Banish Them!
dlowan wrote:

Likely works out just as death penalty for the squeamish...with the addition of hideous torment while you wait to die.


How do you figure? How do you come to that conclusion? They are already kept in close quarters in prison and it doesn't always work out to a death penalty. In a wide open setting where they could elect solitude I don't see why you feel this is the inevitable conclusion.

But either way, that is their responsibility and not that of society. I think it's more humane than prison or the death penalty anyway. The punishment is forfeiture of the societal protections the individual violates. What could happen to the individual without those protections doesn't really strike me as a hugely relevant problem when weighing a decision to merely remove them from a social contract they don't keep their end of.

See, the solution merely is a large-scale segregation of people that, if not killed, would be incarcerated with other criminals anyway. Do you also advocate solitary confinement for all incarceration to prevent inmate on inmate crime?

Quote:
And...what do you do as you drop off more and more people?


Where do you get "more and more people" from? Historically the death penalty is being used less and less, not more and more.

Quote:

Keep seeding, or just let them starve if the society predictable fails? Or put them there and watch them being killed and eaten as you depart?


I didn't have such close quarters in mind. I actually had Australia (guys) and New Zealand (girls) in mind for their sizes, history and relative isolation. I don't think the whole world would have enough death penalty cases to bring about your scenario.

They would be given reasonable chances (think pre-industrial farmer) of survival in my plan. If they have problems with people killing each other in their society they should find a way to make and enforce a social contract.

You shouldn't come up with the worst possible ways to implement an idea when considering the merits of the idea itself unless you can make a case for why it would, instead of could, end up that way.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 02:27 am
Re: Don't Kill or Cage Them...Banish Them!
Robert Gentel wrote:
dlowan wrote:

Likely works out just as death penalty for the squeamish...with the addition of hideous torment while you wait to die.


How do you figure? How do you come to that conclusion? They are already kept in close quarters in prison and it doesn't always work out to a death penalty. In a wide open setting where they could elect solitude I don't see why you feel this is the inevitable conclusion.

But either way, that is their responsibility and not that of society. I think it's more humane than prison or the death penalty anyway. The punishment is forfeiture of the societal protections the individual violates. What could happen to the individual without those protections doesn't really strike me as a hugely relevant problem when weighing a decision to merely remove them from a social contract they don't keep their end of.

See, the solution merely is a large-scale segregation of people that, if not killed, would be incarcerated with other criminals anyway. Do you also advocate solitary confinement for all incarceration to prevent inmate on inmate crime?

Quote:
And...what do you do as you drop off more and more people?


Where do you get "more and more people" from? Historically the death penalty is being used less and less, not more and more.

Quote:

Keep seeding, or just let them starve if the society predictable fails? Or put them there and watch them being killed and eaten as you depart?


I didn't have such close quarters in mind. I actually had Australia (guys) and New Zealand (girls) in mind for their sizes, history and relative isolation. I don't think the whole world would have enough death penalty cases to bring about your scenario.

They would be given reasonable chances (think pre-industrial farmer) of survival in my plan. If they have problems with people killing each other in their society they should find a way to make and enforce a social contract.

You shouldn't come up with the worst possible ways to implement an idea when considering the merits of the idea itself unless you can make a case for why it would, instead of could, end up that way.


I don't know that it is inevitable, but bear in mind that the people you are positing being put somewhere are known for not playing nicely together.

I would by no means think it especially likely that they would settle down to harmonious life together, or scatter peacefully.

It is interesting that you posit Australia, as this was very nearly a death penalty for the early white invaders even with a reasonable amount of support from England, and with some order and organisation. You are, I suppose, imagining plenty of food etc? I am imagining what I think is a far more realistic scenario of amateur farmers having lots of crop failures and food being scarce. (Looking at the hardships of early white settlement in the US and Australia is what I base the hunger scenario on.)

Yes, they are kept in close quarters in prison, and I think that prisons are a good argument for trying to think of something else, but they don't kill each other a lot in prison because there is some imposition of outside order, as well as the presence of groups who will avenge an attack on one of theirs (and protection of vulnerable prisoners by powerful ones, in return for sex.)

Remember, these are not even an ordinary prison population (who tend to be pretty goddam brutal to each other anyway) but the most violent offenders. That being said, some of the nicest criminals I have worked with are murderers, but I am unsure if one off murderers would be in your scenario?

Looking at what happens when prisons, or parts of prisons, get taken over by prisoners for a while is likely the closest in vivo experiment with your scenario, and the Australian experience of that has not been pretty, though I agree that that is a fairly dramatic scenario. These have not generally played out for that long, (though I have a vague feeling some prisons overseas have been in the hands of prisoners for longer?) and so enduring societies have not formed to give us much idea.


I would think the best hope would be the formation of some sort of gang culture, where there was organised brutality, mixed in with the kind of emotional bonding one sees in gangs in the US.....with the added problem of sexual predation to manage. Adding food hardship to this would be a pretty toxic mix, I think.

There were some escapes in early penal Tasmania, where a group of convicts managed to escape and tried to live off the land. My memory is that they ended up killing and eating each other. And...it is quite likely that these were not murderers etc to begin with, given the rather trivial crimes people could be deported for.



I am positing people being added to the population because I do not see it likely that crime would stop because of your islands, and there would be a continuing supply of newly sentenced people to be marooned.


I am not saying a more cheerful society could not form, but I really think you are being rather optimistic about the likely actions of your posited islanders.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 03:33 am
This concept was first presented by David on A2K. It was stupid then , and it hasnt changed. So the moneys for criminal investigations and trials are then poured down a drain as we 'BANISH" the criminals and let the criminals live in Australia (which , of course, would accept being the modern penal colony without question).
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 05:03 am
farmerman wrote:
This concept was first presented by David on A2K. It was stupid then , and it hasnt changed. So the moneys for criminal investigations and trials are then poured down a drain as we 'BANISH" the criminals and let the criminals live in Australia (which , of course, would accept being the modern penal colony without question).


Lol!!! We're already full from the last lot.

I don't think anyone means Australia as such, you know.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 05:17 am
Re: Don't Kill or Cage Them...Banish Them!
dlowan wrote:

I don't know that it is inevitable, but bear in mind that the people you are positing being put somewhere are known for not playing nicely together.

I would by no means think it especially likely that they would settle down to harmonious life together, or scatter peacefully.


That's still a stretch away from certain death. In any case, they are already being placed together in small cells with traditional incarceration.

Quote:
You are, I suppose, imagining plenty of food etc? I am imagining what I think is a far more realistic scenario of amateur farmers having lots of crop failures and food being scarce.


I certainly imagine some crop failure, mostly to do with laziness and not ineptitude. I also see it as a consequence of shunning society by breaking the social contract with society.

Quote:
Yes, they are kept in close quarters in prison, and I think that prisons are a good argument for trying to think of something else, but they don't kill each other a lot in prison because there is some imposition of outside order


Said imposition of outside order consists primarily of denying them most of their freedoms and still doesn't prevent atrocity.

Quote:
as well as the presence of groups who will avenge an attack on one of theirs (and protection of vulnerable prisoners by powerful ones, in return for sex.)


This can exist anywhere, the lack of imposition of outside order is the only relevant distinction.

Quote:
Remember, these are not even an ordinary prison population (who tend to be pretty goddam brutal to each other anyway) but the most violent offenders. That being said, some of the nicest criminals I have worked with are murderers, but I am unsure if one off murderers would be in your scenario?


It would be for death penalty cases (to make this part simple).

Quote:
Looking at what happens when prisons, or parts of prisons, get taken over by prisoners for a while is likely the closest in vivo experiment with your scenario,


I don't think it's anything remotely similar. Prison riots tend to have, as their primary motivation, elements of their incarceration.

Quote:
I would think the best hope would be the formation of some sort of gang culture, where there was organised brutality, mixed in with the kind of emotional bonding one sees in gangs in the US.....with the added problem of sexual predation to manage. Adding food hardship to this would be a pretty toxic mix, I think.


I would think that putting death penalty cases (even from the whole world at ten times the current population) in an area the size of Australia would result in a lot of solitude.

Quote:

I am positing people being added to the population because I do not see it likely that crime would stop because of your islands, and there would be a continuing supply of newly sentenced people to be marooned.


Sounded like you were talking of increasing numbers being sent (as in a greater flow).

Quote:

I am not saying a more cheerful society could not form, but I really think you are being rather optimistic about the likely actions of your posited islanders.


What likely actions have I talked about?

In any case, we already put dangerous people together. I think putting them together in much less proximity is a more humane thing to do even if they do kill themselves at a greater rate. In some places blacks are far more likely to die in jail than out of jail but they still prefer out of jail.

The key to me is that society would not be killing the individuals. I think this is a better solution for the inmates themselves than life in jail or the death penalty even in your worst case scenarios.

Incidentally, what if it was a choice between life in prison and banishment? What qualm would you find with it then? And how many do you think would pick life in prison?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 05:20 am
edgarblythe wrote:
If they could all be put in Dallas I might consider the idea.


So convenient considering that half of them are already residents.

Joe(Will guns be allowed? Somebody ask the USSC.)Nation
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 05:20 am
farmerman wrote:
So the moneys for criminal investigations and trials are then poured down a drain as we 'BANISH" the criminals and let the criminals live in Australia (which , of course, would accept being the modern penal colony without question).


How does this have anything to do with the money spent on criminal investigation and trials? How would the money spent or the procedures themselves even be any different?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jul, 2008 06:12 am
youd be wasting the money on law enforcement by an "I give up" prison system.

We would spend as much or more on policing the perimeters of your "Island penal colony" .
This isnt 1860 , when such a system relied upon enhanced mortality of the prisoners induced by neglect and site conditions. Today, when anyone could make a radio out of spare parts, youd have prisoner breakouts assisted by their criminal organizations and cronies. Inessence youd just have another prison, only with a much larger perimeter to guard.

If we spend quality resources on capture and justice, we should assure ourselves that thye prisoners ARE kept tight with no means of escape. The prison system works fine. (It could be made better of course) but , to abandon it for some cockamamee idea that was cooked up over a few brewskies is dumb, just plain dumb.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Don't Kill or Cage Them...Banish Them!
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 06:48:45