Alternative to death sentence or life imprisonment?

[jverne]

Before i start i beg not to cherry pick and make up false assumptions and accusations like in the previous thread of mine which mecha locked for no logical reason.

This issue was brought up many times but i do not believe in this side of the issue.

Do you have any alternatives (to this two proposed examples, or other), possibly constructive methods.
I read in a similar thread that forced labor was an option.
If you think of, why not, returning something back to society isn't that bad really.

Post your ideas. Picture if you had your country...what would you do in serious crime cases?

EDIT: If you feel lost, give your ideas for crimes such as:
-murder
-rape
-euthanasia (if it is a crime in your imaginary country, of course)
-animal killing (same as above)
-...any crimes that you'd get a high penalty nowadays...
-...oh yea of course...terorism
-religious extremism (if it is a crime, same as above)

Edit#2: if you don't understand something i wrote please ask and don't imagine it.






And no i'm not planning being a dictator, kill or hurt anyone. I was planning to have this debate on my previous thread before everybody went nuts and started throwing accusations and generalizations.

 

[99.vikram]

Firstly, no death sentences except for serial killers (with no hope of reintegration into society).

Terrorism - life imprisonment without parole

Murder & rape - correctional facilities / institutionalization

Euthanasia - Not a crime

Animal killing - compulsory service at some place that takes care of animals.

Religious extremism - force them to attend workshops on religious moderation (and give extra credits to those who attend "Logic And You").

 

[jverne]

Firstly, no death sentences except for serial killers (with no hope of reintegration into society).

Terrorism - life imprisonment without parole

Murder & rape - correctional facilities / institutionalization

Euthanasia - Not a crime

Animal killing - compulsory service at some place that takes care of animals.

Religious extremism - force them to attend workshops on religious moderation (and give extra credits to those who attend "Logic And You").

(disclaimer-everything i say may or may not be my definite opinion)


you kept to very similar penalty's as are practiced today.

Serial killers-if they have no chance of regeneration, i would argue that they are still more useful in some sort of controlled labor than if they would be dead.

terrorism- could be very similar to serial killing, a similar variation could be used.

murder & rape-correctional facilities + intensive possibly lifelong communal working

euthanasia-i would agree that it's not a crime

un-reasoned animal killing- 60-80% of the penalty for doing it to a human (a line between more important and less important animals should be discussed)

Religious extremism-agree for most of the part but maybe a bit steeper




you can post ideas on crimes that you see as a grave crime, not just the mentioned ones.

 

[CptStern]

no death penalty, no forced labour, no cruel or unusual punishment ...we're supposed to be evolving as a species not reverting to barbarism


life in prison without chance of parole for the worst offenders

 

[<RJMC>]

I say trown them in a jail where they cant see the light

 

[Tyguy]

The death Penalty cant be reserved for just serial killers. What about child rapists who just so happen killed a child?

Cruel and Unusual punishment only for jack Bauer and CTU to get intel that could prevent the loss of life.

Whats the prison in Arizona/Texas where the inmates live in tents outside and wear pink?

 

[CptStern]

The death Penalty cant be reserved for just serial killers. What about child rapists who just so happen killed a child?

Cruel and Unusual punishment only for jack Bauer and CTU to get intel that could prevent the loss of life.

you're justifying torture? please explain the difference between government sanctioned torture and brutal dictators like Saddam? Better PR? More effective Spin? Saddam didnt have Foxnews to downplay torture as a means of "keeping America Safe"? ... you're advocating a system that's the very reason you (the US) invaded iraq (or at least after no WMD were found and history was rewritten to spin your justification into a humanitarian one) ..to bring salvation to the people of iraq who were suffering under the brutal torture state run by saddam ..you're (the US) exactly what you (the US) accuse others of being ..except far more insidious because it's cold calculated and has a wider scope than saddam could ever have

Whats the prison in Arizona/Texas where the inmates live in tents outside and wear pink?

hmmm I wonder how effective humiliation is? Has anyone looked at the rate of ex-cons leaving the pink wearing prison only to re-offend? What purpose does humiliation serve? I mean they rob themselves of their freedom why not compund it and take away their dignity so that one day when they are released they'll have such little self worth that the chances of them flying straight is slim to none

by all means, put into place policies that create revolving doors ..but then dont complain about high crime rates, just go out and buy more guns, locks, bars on the door/windows

 

[Sebastian]

I think that the death sentence should be served for the following crimes: pre-meditated Murder, rape, child molestation, and pedophiles. These people just cost the system money to put in prison, and when they get out they won't be changed. But circumstances must be taken into account for things like murder, where it may have been done in self defense or out of anger.

 

[Tyguy]

you're justifying torture?

I justify torture when it could save lives, depending on circumstance. Bad guy knows where a little girl is buried alive but wont tell you. What would you do in that situation Stern? Now lets pretend you knew the girl.

And why are you bringing Saddam into this? When did I even mention a correlation between Iraq and the United states related to prison/torture?

hmmm I wonder how effective humiliation is? Has anyone looked at the rate of ex-cons leaving the pink wearing prison only to re-offend? What purpose does humiliation serve? I mean they rob themselves of their freedom why not compund it and take away their dignity so that one day when they are released they'll have such little self worth that the chances of them flying straight is slim to none

Only you could suggest forcing murderers and rapists to wear pink is "Cruel"

Think Pink

One of Arpaio's most noted changes was the introduction of pink underwear. Arpaio noted that the traditional white underwear, labeled with Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was being smuggled out of the jails and sold on the streets. Arpaio thus had the underwear dyed pink, believing that pink is not considered a "macho" color, and would not be stolen. Interestingly, once the public learned of the change, requests came in for orders, and Arpaio began selling customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for sheriff's operations.

Arpaio would subsequently introduce pink handcuffs among sheriff's deputies, who were taking the traditional silver-colored ones [1]. Later, when Arpaio learned that the color pink has a known psychological calming effect, Arpaio began dying sheets, socks, towels, and all other fabric items in pink.

However, the outer uniform is not pink, but traditional black-and-white. This was part of another Arpaio-instituted change. One day, Arpaio thought he saw an inmate escapee in the then-existing sea-green inmate uniform outside the jail (it turned out to be a hospital worker in scrubs). Later, he noted that the orange uniforms of the chain gangs were similar to uniforms used by county workers (the orange being needed for safety). Believing that inmates should be easily identifiable should they escape, Arpaio reinstituted the traditional black-and-white inmate uniforms, which even with the advent of everything else being pink has not changed.

 

[Sebastian]

so, we're supposed to be coming up with alternatives to the death sentence and life in prison. I say that they use these people for the latest drug experiments and medical procedures. Maybe they could use them as practice for up and coming medical students to operate on. If we put harsh punishments on crimes, then people won't commit them and there will be a lower crime rate.

 

[CptStern]

I justify torture when it could save lives, depending on circumstance. Bad guy knows where a little girl is buried alive but wont tell you. What would you do in that situation Stern? Now lets pretend you knew the girl.

"if"s doesnt make for a compelling argument ...what if the person is innocent? "oh well we were trying to save the girl's life, we're sorry suspect A will be forever traumatised ..oh and we regret the death of suspect B ..we didnt try to drown him, honestly!

And why are you bringing Saddam into this? When did I even mention a correlation between Iraq and the United states related to prison/torture?

because it's an example of the use of torture ..it's the old "we can do it but no one else can" justification

Only you could suggest forcing murderers and rapists to wear pink is "Cruel"

probably because you didnt make much effort in fully thinking it through ..it could be purple, orange with red spots or plaid for all I care ..the effect is the same

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2552686&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

 

[jverne]

why is forced labor wrong? i mean forced labor not as in cleaning the nuclear reactor core or digging roads with your teeth.

 

[Tyguy]

probably because you didn't make much effort in fully thinking it through ..it could be purple, orange with red spots or plaid for all I care ..the effect is the same

it could be purple, but its not. Are you really concerned with the prisoners being embarrassed?

 

[CptStern]

We can assume for the sake of argument that the person is not innocent. I cant fathom your mindset of not wanting to "traumatize" this person, the same person who did this to a child.

there you go with "if"s again ..you have no idea if the person is guilty or not ...that's what interrogations are for. It's disconcerting when seemingly rational people advocate torture but only under strict circumstances when in reality there are no circumstances that prevent torture ...except the law of course ..but who cares about serving justice? it's just a meaningless catchphrase used to justify whatever the hell you want it to justify. While we're at it why not just throw out the bill of rights? "oh we'll just throw out the ones that conflict with our needs"

it could be purple, but its not. Are you really concerned with the prisoners being embarrassed?

embarrassment? I couldnt care less if they set themselves on fire ..that's not the point

you just dont get it ..you never will so I'll just leave it at that

 

[CyberPitz]

I think that the death sentence should be served for the following crimes: pre-meditated Murder, rape, child molestation, and pedophiles. These people just cost the system money to put in prison, and when they get out they won't be changed. But circumstances must be taken into account for things like murder, where it may have been done in self defense or out of anger.

That's a pretty tough line to draw. The way the legal system works over here, if it's word vs. word, nothing gets accomplished. Whats to stop someone from kidnapping a person, bringing them in their house, then shooting them under the premise of "He broke into my house, and was going to kill me."

Wait...that sounds like a solid plan....

 

[Tyguy]

there you go with "if"s again ..you have no idea if the person is guilty or not ...that's what interrogations are for. It's disconcerting when seemingly rational people advocate torture but only under strict circumstances when in reality there are no circumstances that prevent torture ...except the law of course ..but who cares about serving justice? it's just a meaningless catchphrase used to justify whatever the hell you want it to justify. While we're at it why not just throw out the bill of rights? "oh we'll just throw out the ones that conflict with our needs"

What about the patriot act?

I told you he was guilty, lets say he admitted doing it. So enough dancing around the question, are you seriously not going to do everything in your power to save their life?

embarrassment? I couldnt care less if they set themselves on fire ..that's not the point

you just dont get it ..you never will so I'll just leave it at that

If you tried logically explaining your reasoning i'll meet you half way.

 

[Sebastian]

That's a pretty tough line to draw. The way the legal system works over here, if it's word vs. word, nothing gets accomplished. Whats to stop someone from kidnapping a person, bringing them in their house, then shooting them under the premise of "He broke into my house, and was going to kill me."

Wait...that sounds like a solid plan....

That's true. Circumstances would dictate the outcome. But if someone murdered or raped another person and there was rock solid evidence proving this fact, then the sentence would be carried out.

 

[CptStern]

What about the patriot act?

I told you he was guilty, lets say he admitted doing it. So enough dancing around the question, are you seriously not going to do everything in your power to save their life?

nope sorry I'm not going to answer you hypothetical question because it is completely meaningless ...it's actually detrimental to your argument because you're saying that only under very narrowly defined circumstances ..well how would you determine when it's to be used? on a case by case basis? who will decide?

using the US as an example the torture your government commits has nothing to do with saving lives ..if that were true they wouldnt have released prisoners who've been tortured

the use of torture is illegal under your own laws as well as international law ..any allowance of torture only opens the door to further criminality

If you tried logically explaining your reasoning i'll meet you half way.

the anwsers are already there if you just stopped and listened for a minute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Tyguy]

nope sorry I'm not going to answer you hypothetical question because it is completely meaningless ...it's actually detrimental to your argument because you're saying that only under very narrowly defined circumstances ..well how would you determine when it's to be used? on a case by case basis? who will decide?

using the US as an example the torture your government commits has nothing to do with saving lives ..if that were true they wouldnt have released prisoners who've been tortured

Thats the argument, it should be allowed only under certain circumstances. The fact that you wont answer my question doesn't exactly help your argument. The only way I can counter your claim is by giving a "what if" type situation. Every situation where I would suggest it would be necessary is a "what if."

the anwsers are already there if you just stopped and listened for a minute

Nothing I read prevents what he is doing.

 

[CptStern]

Thats the argument, it should be allowed only under certain circumstances. The fact that you wont answer my question doesn't exactly help your argument. The only way I can counter your claim is by giving a "what if" type situation. Every situation where I would suggest it would be necessary is a "what if."

again you dont get it ..forget it, not worth repeating things ad nauseum

Nothing I read prevents what he is doing.

only because no one has constitutionaly challenged it ...but you still miss the broader implications here

 

[99.vikram]

While we're at it why not just throw out the bill of rights? "oh we'll just throw out the ones that conflict with our needs"

The bill of rights only applies to contributing members of society, ie, those that do not kill people for pleasure. If someone shows no remorse, and has no hope of reintegrating with society, what choice is there but to put him someplace where he can "do no possible harm".

You do understand that under the present system a convict is "tortured" only after he is, you know, convicted?

you just dont get it ..you never will so I'll just leave it at that

Great point

 

[jverne]

Thats the argument, it should be allowed only under certain circumstances. The fact that you wont answer my question doesn't exactly help your argument. The only way I can counter your claim is by giving a "what if" type situation. Every situation where I would suggest it would be necessary is a "what if."




Nothing I read prevents what he is doing.

well yea, but "what if" just won't cut it. you need a more generalized method in dealing crime situations. like "innocent until proven guilty".


Stern would you explain why forced labor is wrong?

 

[Tyguy]

well yea, but "what if" just won't cut it. you need a more generalized method in dealing crime situations. like "innocent until proven guilty".


Stern would you explain why forced labor is wrong?

Dont rely on someone else to prove your points. Im going to direct my question to you, what would you do in that situation, and lets hear an actual answer.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Terrorism - life imprisonment without parole

A: Assume a terrorist used a chemical weapon or a low grade nuclear weapon in an unprovoked attack on a civilian populace, reguardless where it was and what it was based upon? What if he was'nt nessecarly someone who was commiting these acts on the frontlines or against civilians, but say, specifically animals to see if a particular set of chemical odors, gases or biological devices would work well as weapons against the military and its protected civilian targets? What if this person was just a foot soldier or was an attrocious ring leader who planned and ordered out the execution of civilians and hostages?

NSDAP Leaders were hanged for the Holocaust attrocity -- some however were sent to GULAGs while others were paroled based upon involvement. Would simple life imprisonment be the or correct method of punishment given the varying degrees and forms of terrorism?

Murder & rape - correctional facilities / institutionalization

A: A man kills another. The man who is being charged with this crime is believed to be extremely rational with the capacity to facilitate intellectual thoughts, discussions, and beliefs. The accused also has no past history of Psychological disorders that would otherwise impair his mind from a rational or logical capacity and nothing is known physically about him that might otherwise handicap his ability to work or process in society aswell as his ability to work and function a good, organized social life style.

When this man is brought before a judge and questioned as to his reasoning, the person not only admits but explains, "that I've never commited a murder before this but I rationalized that, I could do it, and should without any other circumstances existing prior that might otherwise imply; that what I was doing was somehow motivated out of aggravation or past relations with this human being, nor out of any emotional connection or physical attraction aswell as probable admiration. I simply had that power in my mind and chose to exercise it." For a case like this, how do you handle it?

If he really believes that what he did was right, rational, fair, and additionally had not displayed any psychological or mental afflictions that would attribute to a sense of wrong doing or post crime disorders, would institutionalizing this criminal be logical?

How would handle perhaps a Psychopath who winds up killing on the upwards of 25 people and additionally rationalizes that he was correct? How about a terrorist?

Euthanasia - Not a crime

A: It can be if a man Euthanasizes people over simple emotional problems that one experiences from every day life or social contact/involvement with modern society.

Killing someone over they're own pain, is still murder.

Killing someone because of they're physical disabilities I believe morally wrong, because in a time of total societial break down, doctors and nurses might rid themselves of people they could save but choose optionally not to because of the amount of time it may or may not take to cure them of they're afflictions.

How about someone who has a case of Autism, or Down Syndrome? People with complete rational ability exist in such bodies, so would you argue that they're physical being is more like an entrapment and believe, a 'normal person' without dysfunction or dementia, should exercise the right to think for them and potentially remove them out of society? Or make it appear that because of they're disabilities that they should not have the rights of those who appear to be or function normally? Would you argue that physical handicaps are a sign of weakness or a failure of the genes? That someone acting differently might require Euthanasian because they do not appear to act normally in a society?

Another example of Euthanasia could be a terrorist or soldier taking the life of animal through chemical, biological, or kinetic 'testing'. Do animals have the same rights as humans? Do we akin ourselves to make suicide a process belonging to another individual who might lack the correct judgement to asses we have the possibility to improve our situation, wether temporarly psychological or physically impairing?

Animal killing - compulsory service at some place that takes care of animals.

A: You would be putting those animals at risk if the criminal had some sort of mental disorder that would eventually lead him to repeat his crimes. Family pets coming in for shots might actually be getting lethal injections from this guy. Dogs, Cats, or other animals might wind up becoming the victims of this persons psychological and or physical abuses, then would subsequently decline in both they're physical or mental health.

Thats like taking a charged repeat offending Pedophile and leaving him in charge of a after-school program or daycare. Don't you think its a sort of, 'playing with fire' to enable a criminal by replacing him back into an environment where his crimes would easier to facilitate or commit?

Religious extremism - force them to attend workshops on religious moderation (and give extra credits to those who attend "Logic And You").

A: I could see this as working but the possibility might exist that it does no work -- btw, how does Religious Extremism constitute a crime if it has not hurt anyone physically?

Emotional harm can be fixed by the self aswell as distance. No one has the moral obligation to be completely responsive or submitted to societal beliefs that would imply 'Rationalism' over 'Religio-Facism'. But that obligation to law, justice, and change does exist if crimes of physical hurt or abuse were in tow.

Would you arrest someone whose religion worshipped dragons and in which this beliefs written text gave its worshippers orders to indulge in sex and chocolate? Or does only physical or mental aggravations constitute an arrest?

My Answers in Red.

 

[jverne]

Dont rely on someone else to prove your points. Im going to direct my question to you, what would you do in that situation, and lets hear an actual answer.

firstly i don't rely on anybody.

my point was that you cannot accuse somebody and then torture the answers out of him. basically we can argue what is the better, but society nowadays choose the innocent until guilty method of trial. medieval inquisition was the other way around and we all know how that turned out.

"what if" he really is guilty you say? let's put it this way...(as stern already clearly pointed out)...you amputate the suspect arm in hope he is guilty, after further investigation it turns out that he is not. will his arm grow back? no. but if you use the method i mentioned above such situations are almost impossible.
+ by your method every person on the world would be an amputee because everyone is a suspect.

is this what you are implying? correct me if i'm worng

 

[Tyguy]

is this what you are implying? correct me if i'm worng

I suppose if everyone kidnapped little girls and buried them alive, then you are right. However, if you took a minute to read my post you would know that I was relying on a specific incident, and I have yet to get an answer.

 

[CptStern]

well yea, but "what if" just won't cut it. you need a more generalized method in dealing crime situations. like "innocent until proven guilty".


Stern would you explain why forced labor is wrong?

why are siberian gulags wrong? why should corporations profit from cheap labor that would otherwise go to lawabiding citizens?

here read this:

http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117050

Dont rely on someone else to prove your points. Im going to direct my question to you, what would you do in that situation, and lets hear an actual answer.

what suituation? my kidnapped daughter scenario? that isnt a valid question because I would kill you and everyone else here to ensure my daughter is safe ..wrong question to ask a parent

or do you mean if I was a cop and had a criminal who confessed to a crime but you needed to torture him in order to find out where she is ....hmm what would Det. Stabler do? someone has been watching too much law and order SVU ..again that makes no sense because as a cop I dont write the law ...so if I was a legislator ..well i wouldnt be faced with a situation where my decision had to be made in order to save a life as laws dont become laws instantly

again your scenario is meaningless because it's just so narrowly defined that it's unrealistic

 

[99.vikram]

(about terrorists)

Any person who believes in an anti-social agenda (and cannot be changed) will not benefit society. So we must put him somewhere where he can't do any harm till he dies. Killing him would be retribution, unbecoming of modern society.

If he really believes that what he did was right, rational, fair, and additionally had not displayed any psychological or mental afflictions that would attribute to a sense of wrong doing or post crime disorders, would institutionalizing this criminal be logical?

Everything must be considered from the point of view of society. Is this man capable of killing again? If yes, then institutionalization is the only solution. Even if he is a completely rational person, he can be educated on exactly why he shouldn't have killed or raped.

How would handle perhaps a Psychopath who winds up killing on the upwards of 25 people?

Institutionalize him if possible. Killing him would be retribution.
If he was completely level headed during all of his crimes, it's a waste of taxpayers' money to keep him alive - kill him.

It can be if a man Euthanasizes people over simple emotional problems that one experiences from every day life or social contact/involvement with modern society.

That is an extreme case, which must be treated differently - support groups and such.

Killing someone over they're own pain, is still murder.

You believe that, I don't. So according to my world view, my solution is still valid.

Killing someone because of they're physical disabilities I believe morally wrong, because in a time of total societial break down, doctors and nurses might rid themselves of people they could save but choose optionally not to because of the amount of time it may or may not take.

Netherlands seems to handle this well. As long as this is supervised well enough, it will work.

You would be putting those animals at risk if the criminal had some sort of mental disorder that would eventually lead him to repeat his crimes.

Any offender would obviously be working under close supervision.

btw, how does Religious Extremism constitute a crime if it has not hurt anyone physically?

The last one was a joke. :|
I thought I had made that clear.

Religious extremism is a state of mind, not an act amounting to crime.

 

[jverne]

I suppose if everyone kidnapped little girls and buried them alive, then you are right. However, if you took a minute to read my post you would know that I was relying on a specific incident, and I have yet to get an answer.

listen...if you know the child rapist is guilty because he admitted it. Then you are in a way right. But why torture, i'm sure there are other ways to retrieve information. like penalty reduction or something.

In the "what if" situation you just might be right, but such situations are a minuscule percentage of all crime trials.


One possible solution could be a variety of self inflicted torture.
explanation:

The offender when proven guilty is sent to the prison. There he must work for the "benefits" of better food,a bed, books,... if he doesn't pay the rent he gets stuffed in a small confined solitary cell without food or watter until he decides that is better for him to cooperate. This argument is derived from the assumption that the tax payers are not forced to buy his food or accommodation.

This is sort of a self inflicted torture.
And yes i realize i can't patch all the holes in this method in a single paragraph, but you get the picture.


And no this isn't the only way or my absolute opinion, but more of a thought for argument's sake.

 

[Tyguy]

I used that scenario just to make a point. Torture shouldn't be used to find your lost wallet by any means, but if it saves innocent lives, i have ZERO remorse about it

 

[CptStern]

The bill of rights only applies to contributing members of society, ie, those that do not kill people for pleasure.

nope:

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

If someone shows no remorse, and has no hope of reintegrating with society, what choice is there but to put him someplace where he can "do no possible harm".

like prison?

You do understand that under the present system a convict is "tortured" only after he is, you know, convicted?

ummmm ..no

I dont know how it is in your neck of the woods but torture is against US and international law ..it doesnt all of the sudden change when a person is convicted of a crime; that's rediculous to even suggest that

Great point

it's not a "point" it's a matter of fact ..I'm tired of endlessly repeating the same crap over and over again just because people cant be bothered to try to understand it

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Guys, were discussing alternatives to punishments in our ideal world, not wether torture is moral or not. (Which its not)

 

[jverne]

I used that scenario just to make a point. Torture shouldn't be used to find your lost wallet by any means, but if it saves innocent lives, i have ZERO remorse about it

Ok, i won't argue on your opinion. but technically speaking your method is hanging on a thin rope.



Oh an Stern read the possible solution to labor for convicts i explained above. Give it a thought. There are no corporations involved here...communal work i believe is the current used term.


oh yea...piggy is right. This thread is primarily not about what is moral, but what is efficient, sane and socially benefiting. Try to keep morality in an argument at it's bare minimum.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Any person who believes in an anti-social agenda (and cannot be changed) will not benefit society. So we must put him somewhere where he can't do any harm till he dies. Killing him would be retribution, unbecoming of modern society.

What about institutionalizing him? What about the rights of alledged war criminals? Would'nt it also be considered retribution if you kept him in prison until he died? Is'int all justice retribution?

Even if he is a completely rational person, he can be educated on exactly why he shouldn't have killed or raped.

I guess my example was ploying on its exact opposite -- the all too common escape route of most rational and logical killers who do exactly opposite of moral law and conditioning.

Should society treat them both the same, or differently, if the crime (murder) appears the same?

Everything must be considered from the point of view of society.

Since were debating your examples yes, and I do appreciate your answers for them.

How would you feel if in my opinion, depending upon how a person died, life in prison to a death sentence would or might be the only two decisions on the table for someone proven guilty of a crime?

Or what other options do you think have been exampled and have proven abilities to work?

Institutionalize him if possible. Killing him would be retribution.
If he was completely level headed during all of his crimes, it's a waste of taxpayers' money to keep him alive - kill him.

But, in your own world view, even after 25 murders, would'nt killing him for 25 instead of one, appear to still be retribution?

Is it the number of killed, number of charges, or the methods of this mans murder spree that if in your world view, we should consider death?

You believe that, I don't. So according to my world view, my solution is still valid.

We both however dont live in the worlds we should like to -- assuming a Policy change or shift in favor of different methods, would'nt someone likely of 'saving' from a life altering disability or emotional problem be suspectible to this sort of 'mercy killing', even if possible, it were'nt nessecary?

How would you judge the nessecary and not so nessecary?

That is an extreme case, which must be treated differently - support groups and such.

If however an emotionally disabled person insisted -- should we?

Or, should they're be boundaries, as you implied.

Netherlands seems to handle this well. As long as this is supervised well enough, it will work.

But these people have the potential to survive let alone provide limited ability for scientific research to help fix or potentially cure these problems in the future, even if its currently limited with what we have now.

Would killing them, despite the potential to save them, be selfish and perhaps undermine scientific agendas to forward our progress as a society through unwaveringly research for cures through the understanding and growing knowledge of our bodies/physical vessels?

Any offender would obviously be working under close supervision.

The system has the potential to still slip -- co-workers reporting on behavior or Police monitoring the potential for a rise in bad behavior might miss a particular step or emotional change.

Do you think education outside of an environment from this might help to make the criminal better and be much more capable to return them to society? Or, do you believe directly approaching his crime is the right manner?

Both obviously has they're risks. And I don't nessecarly believe a criminal, can be completely fixed.

The last one was a joke.

If it was, then cheers. I've enjoyed this debate thus far. Hope to continue it in the future.

 

[CptStern]

I used that scenario just to make a point. Torture shouldn't be used to find your lost wallet by any means, but if it saves innocent lives, i have ZERO remorse about it

when does it save lives? under narrowly defined circumstances? in it's current use do you honestly believe CIA handlers train their interogators in this manner?

"ok we have a little girl buried up her neck in sand ..the walls are slowly collapsing and if we dont find out where she is we may be too late..

for the good of god and country we need to find that girl, use any means necessary ..and if that means you have to use force, well may god have mercy on our souls but it's the only decent thing to do ..toughen up men, there's a little girl who will see another christmas if we have any say in it.."

just utter escapistist nonsense meant to placate the patriotic and easily duped ..the reality is far far more one sided:

Records detainee stating that "he had been beaten unconscious approximately three or four weeks ago when he was still at Camp X-ray. According to REDACTED an unknown number of guards entered his cell, unprovoked, and started spitting and cursing at him. The guards called him a "son of a bitch" and a "bastard," then told him he was crazy. REDACTED rolled onto his stomach to protect himself . . . A soldier . . . jumped on his back and started beating him in the face. REDACTED then choked him until he passed out. REDACTED stated that REDACTED was beating him because REDACTED was a Muslim and REDACTED is a Christian. REDACTED indicated there was a female guard named REDACTED who was also beating him and grabbed his head and beat it into the cell floor."

Notes, "[w]hen REDACTED was turned over to US authorities, he was beaten by the US military forces. REDACTED was turned over to US authorities REDACTED. He was taken by helicopter to an unknown location where he was beaten. While his eyes were covered, he was kicked in the stomach and back by several individuals. He noted American English accents. After being moved to an unknown facility in Bagram, his head was placed against the cement floor and his head was kicked. As a result of other beatings in Bagram, REDACTED received a broken shoulder. During one evening REDACTED was left outside of the facility where he was being held. The ground was wet and it was snowing. He was wearing only pants and a ragged shirt. As a result of being out in the cold, he became unconscious. . . . . When he was moved to Kandahar, he was not beaten as frequently and severely. Periodically, REDACTED was kicked and pushed. He was dragged three times to interrogations. On one occasion during prayer time, a soldier placed his foot on REDACTED head and sat on his head. REDACTED stated that the soldiers wore tan and brown camouflage uniforms, with US flags on their arms."

Notes, "after being interviewed by the two females, he was taken to the 'dark place.' At the 'dark place,' a hood was placed over his head and he was yelled at and beaten. REDACTED stated that because of this treatment at the hands of his captors he provided the interrogators with whatever information that they wanted to hear."

btw REDACTED = censored

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052505/

it's nice to live in a nice little fairy tale where the good guys wear white and the bad guys eat babies ..however the inevitable appointment with reality can be quite jarring when it finally does come

 

[Tyguy]

Thats quite an arbitrary example, especially not knowing any specifics of the case. I could paste pages of facts about 911 but that doesn't quite make a point either.

 

[CptStern]

Thats quite an arbitrary example, especially not knowing any specifics of the case. I could paste pages of facts about 911 but that doesn't quite make a point either.

no, it's a valid example as it's the only current example of state torture we have

 

[PvtRyan]

What about institutionalizing him? What about the rights of alledged war criminals? Would'nt it also be considered retribution if you kept him in prison until he died? Is'int all justice retribution?

No. It's protecting society from a maniac. Putting someone away for life isn't about revenge, it's about safeguarding everybody else.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

So, whats the difference between Prison and Institutionalization?

Honest question, really.

 

[Jintor]

Soap.