Two or three decades ago a movie came out "Escape from New York". The premise was a modernistic USA in which Manhattan Island, complete with all its structures, had been converted into a maximum security prison.
Those convicted of capital crimes had a choice: a quick, painless death by injection or they could go to the Island with no possibility of ever leaving it.
Food, medicine, clothing drops were made, but there were no jail cells, no guards, no rules other than those the prisoners themselves made. The perimeter was constantly guarded by helicopter and patrol boat and anyone attempting to leave the Island was immediately shot to death.
Apart from the sociological interest of how a society like that might develop, would any here favor that as a solution?
No, I wouldn't. Great idea for a reality TV show though..."Devil's Island"...we just need to allow TV to degrade just a little further.
Punishment, where applied out of some notion of 'he deserves it', seems rather medieval and barbaric to me. There's a clear and justifiable function of prisons in protecting society. And there's an equally clear and justifiable function in prisons, or in punishment, where deterence is statistically measureable. Otherwise, it's just vengeance.
It sounds like a waste of perfectly good food, medicine, and clothing. BTW Kurt Russell is great.
"Removal from society" should mean revocation of breathing rights. Sticking sick and twisted killers in prison lets them influence other inmates to become sick and twisted too. The influenced ones go free when their sentences are done, and the cycle begins again.
I love the Old Testament passage where god is watching the smoke rising from all those folks burning down in hell, and God smiles.
Tarantulas- I agree. Prison all too often is a minor league system where criminals learn to ply their trade better. The worst abusers in society- rapist, pedophiles and vicious murderers should be kept in solitary for life. My Uncle was a Captain at Rikers Island in NYC for 25 years. There is not a whole lot of rehabilation going on there.
MyOwnUsername wrote:by the way, Devil's advocate or Advocatus Diaboli is title of high official of Catholic Church (who has duty to find all possible reasons for someone not to be bonificated) so I guess you would rather skip that title
))
Sheesh, I think you're right there! Nope, I don't want that job.
I think I'll just leave it at: I do think there are certain crimes that warrant the death penalty, such as serial killers, serial rapists and rapists/killers of children. So...abolish it, no, fine tune it, perhaps yes.
I still reject the idea of 'vengeance' when it comes to sentencing those convicted of capital crimes or any crimes.
If the law is explicit in the penalty for breaking it, whether fine, making restitution, jail/prison time, or death, the law breaker himself/herself chooses the outcome. If there is no consequence for breaking the law, there is no incentive for the criminally inclined not to break it.
Sure, where deterence is effectual, that's got to be part of the equation.
But if you are suggesting that once a punishment is established, then all moral questions become moot, that's a bit easy.
Not too long past, in the streets of London, one could sit down on a high fence and watch folks being pulled apart by four horses. In Taliban controlled states, theft was lawfully punished by whacking off the thiefs hands.
So, whether or not a state sets out a penalty (puts it into the law...eg three strikes, to take a modern example) doesn't entail that all the moral thinking has been done.
I don't want to cause offense or trauma to anyone here with real-life cases, but I do wonder sometimes if the argument that death is too easy isn't actually more vengeful than just killing these sickos? Personally, I would rather have serious closure, maybe because I don't trust the prison system, or lawyers.
blatham wrote:Sure, where deterence is effectual, that's got to be part of the equation.
But if you are suggesting that once a punishment is established, then all moral questions become moot, that's a bit easy.
Not too long past, in the streets of London, one could sit down on a high fence and watch folks being pulled apart by four horses. In Taliban controlled states, theft was lawfully punished by whacking off the thiefs hands.
So, whether or not a state sets out a penalty (puts it into the law...eg three strikes, to take a modern example) doesn't entail that all the moral thinking has been done.
Blatham, I seriously believe that if we went back to public executions, it would be the highest revenue grab in the history of pay-per-view. In an imperfect system, I think keeping it off the tube, and out of the public square, is still better than no death penalty at all.
My position as a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) is that humans are not capable of making decisions about life and death. And we, the Quakers, instituted the institution of penitentiary after all. Punishment is not the issue it is killing another human that is the issue for me.
I think putting someone convicted by jury and sentenced according to law in a room with only the bible to read is a pretty harsh punishment.
The World's First Penitentiary
cav
I understand, I think. Rehabilitation isn't quite so reliable as repair of a clutch. It seems as if (and the lady who prosecuted OJ...Marsha something), when asked why she wanted the death penalty for him when there wasn't a statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime reduction, answered "Well, he'd never do it again."
But that statistic is important.
blatham, I suppose that it sadly comes down to the same old argument of crime reduction versus criminal reduction, each one circular. The issue of rehabilitation is still nebulous in terms of proof regarding it's effectiveness. There is evidence that shows certain criminals just cannot be rehabilitated. Would death be better? That might be a question left to the ages. So far, neither approach seems to work effectively.
Joanne, potent thoughts as always.
Nice historical piece Joanne.
cav...yup, I know. Tip of the hat to whatever fates have graced me with only minimal psychopathy.
Hi Joanne
My dad used to work for the Quakers, the American Friends Service Committee, on prison reform and prisoner's rights. Small world!
The group did so much for him. Those were the best years of his life.
Suzy I am very involved with the AFSC. Yes indeed a small world.
They are building many new cyclepathys right here in our city, and it's annoying the drivers. I think this could turn into road rage, and vehicular homicide. I'm guessing there would be no death penalty for the SUV murderer, not just because there is no death penalty here, but because they could cop out on a 'mental anguish' defence as well.
Blatham, there is not a lot of rehab. because most do not want to be rehabbed. Most do not belive that they did anything wrong other than the fact that they got caught. It is a generalization but on that is for the most part true. Rapists and especially pedophiles cannot be rehabbed. They are sick and should be locked away. The sentences that most rapists get is a sick joke.
In reference to drug crimes, I would not include them. I find most of them to be a victim of socio-economic circumstances.
