2
   

Removing criminals from society without going to their level

 
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 01:47 am
Anyone who favors capital punishment is in favor of pre-meditated killing, and doesn't mind an occasional innocent person being murdered by the state.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 11:39 am
Booman, Not everybody agrees with your "right to life" philosophy. There are some criminals that have killed others that I wouldn't mind seeing put into the gas chamber or other 'humane' form of execution. People like Tim McVeigh comes to mind. Your absolutes may make sense to you, but not to many others. Some people's offense make their lives unworthy in this world. c.ii.
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 04:24 pm
C.I,
...I believe "humane execution", is an oxymoron. We are probably heading for a stalemate in our opinions, but I want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. When someone like McVeigh gets killed, I admit, I feel no sorrow for him. I just hate that the system is in place, because every case is not that cut and dry. Plus, even though I don't feel sorry for him, deep inside I know it's not right for me to condone taking his life, because that puts me on the same level as him. And yes, I concede that you are in the majority, I 'm an unpopular "softie".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 04:31 pm
I'm not in favor of the death penalty in general, but some people like McVeigh just doesn't deserve any sympathy. They go out to kill as many innocent people as possible without any conscience. For those folks, I see nothing wrong with the death penalty. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 04:48 pm
Sigh...okay... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 04:55 pm
Wait-a-minute, let me give this one more shot. I might learn something.
C.I., since you don't believe in state killing generally, but do in the case of people like McVeigh, exactly how would you do that time in, time out thing? Confused
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 10:14 pm
Capital punishment is not a nice thing, Boo. It is probably good that that it not be the sort of thing we enjoy, particularly if it is to be employed.



timber
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2003 10:28 pm
Boo, I'm not sure I understand your "time in, time out" thing. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 12:06 am
I'm thinking, either you want it or not. You said generally you don't approve. So if some special case comes along how would you reinstitute it. And how would one detrmine special cases?

Timber,...We're part of the loud minority.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 12:18 am
I can't speak for others, but I would reserve the death penalty for very special cases where the individual is responsible for the death of many by intentional murder, and they are determined to be a danger to society. Unless the state allows the death penalty, even cases such as Tim McVeigh's will be several life times in prison without the possibility of parole. I sat as a juror in a rape-murder case. The young man is now serving a life in prison without the possibility of parole, because of what is termed "special circumstance." The prosecution requested the death penalty. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Booman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jan, 2003 12:28 am
I think we've come to a philosophical impasse. And we did it like gentlemen. A double pat on the back for us. Cool
0 Replies
 
Lythicgod
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 07:46 pm
This is a very interesting debate
But if you give these people life sentences that adds more of a financial burden on society
I think the powers that be should invest more time and money in the communities for programs to educate children and give them more options in life
Instead of standing on the corner playing dice and looking up to criminals
Programs to build self estem and worth
People always say it's the parents job to teach there kids right from wrong ,but if mom and dad have to work full time sometimes work two jobs
Who is going to take time out for the child
There is no one on this earth that can truthful say(unless they are mentally insane)that killing some one is okay
Dont get me wrong I think there will always be crime, but I think there would be less if the world would slow down a little and take care of what is really important
Good people don't just happen they are molded with care and attention when there mind is most impressionable
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 08:38 pm
Lythic, You have the right solution to our criminal problems in the US where it costs taxpayers more to keep them in prison rather than spending it on prevention when they are young.

Our government at all levels has failed their social responsibility to the total community at large by ignoring what has been known for many decades; that poverty produces bad schools and poor peformance from its students, and the majority of those children turn to crime to make a living.

In California, each prisoner costs taxpayers about $45,000/year. A small portion of that spent on prevention would do wonders.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 09:47 pm
Lythicgod wrote:
This is a very interesting debate
But if you give these people life sentences that adds more of a financial

It's been a while and my memory in regard to my imaginary scenario may be faulty, but I think what I was describing was a world in which they were not a financial burden. They were simply cast out from society to fend for themselves (think Australia).
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 10:38 pm
Australia only got to be a penal colony because those pesky North American colonials got shirty with the British and refused to take any more convicts. With prisons full and the hulks on the Thames up to the gunwhales more land had to be found. So the British govt sent Captain Cook to claim New Holland before anyone else did. The idea was not to send the unwilling colonists to fend for themselves but to set up a self-sustaining penal colony and outpost of the empire. Britain needed a foothold in the South Pacific and so it got one.

Prisons are the modern day equivalent of exile. Because you can't simply dump anyone where you wish these days you have to have prisons. It's a sunk cost, may as well keep them full.

Historically prisons weren't for punishment. They were where punishment was carried out. Now we're more enlightened. We just lock them up instead of carrying out torture on them.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2005 12:10 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Lythicgod wrote:
This is a very interesting debate
But if you give these people life sentences that adds more of a financial

It's been a while and my memory in regard to my imaginary scenario may be faulty, but I think what I was describing was a world in which they were not a financial burden. They were simply cast out from society to fend for themselves (think Australia).


Actually, they weren't left to fend for themselves.


They were put in prisons, or made to work for people,and guarded and disciplined and so on. There were soldiers and governors and magistrates and such. And rum, very soon.


Yours is, I believe, an oddly utopian/dystopian (depending on where you are in the scenario) fantasy only, one that has not really been realised anywhere on the planet as yet.


Except on film sets
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 07:33 am
Tee hee, I knew I'd get at least one criminal Aussie to pipe up.... Laughing

It hasn't been done with actual islands, but the notion of being exiled from a community for having run afoul of its rules has been done.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 10:08 am
From my limited understanding of the history of Australia, many were sent there from England and Ireland for "minor" offenses.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 03:28 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Tee hee, I knew I'd get at least one criminal Aussie to pipe up.... Laughing

It hasn't been done with actual islands, but the notion of being exiled from a community for having run afoul of its rules has been done.


We aren't criminals, we're just very naughty boys and girls.

Yeah, but a big part of your idea, I think, is/was that the criminals be left to make their own world, not guarded and all that.

Has it been done sans guards and authorities?

Not contesting, especially, just interested.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 03:39 pm
Tasmanian History

Why was Tasmania settled?
Although discovered by the `old world' in 1642, Tasmania was not settled by Europeans until the English arrived in 1803 and the island became part of the expanding British Empire.

By 1822, with the growth of city populations, gaols in Britain were overcrowded and the Crown began transporting convicts to Tasmania. Thus one of Tasmania's most important early functions was as a penal colony.

Tasmania was once one of the most important whaling fleet homeports in the world; mining and agriculture also contributed to the early economy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 05:03:13