Capital Punishment

[baxter]

Hanging was abolished in the UK in 1964.

Myra Hindley and Ian Brady escaped the death sentence by months, even though they actually committed their crimes before Capital punishment was abolished.

There is and will continue to be In the UK a fierce debate as to whether capital punishment should be reintroduced.

Whether it be though media hype and greater public awareness there is a growing lobby for the reintroduction of capital punishment back into the UK.

It seems like every day acts of brutality and violence are committed and the law is unable to deal with it.

My question is simple and to the broader audience, is,

Does Capital punishment work?

Should monsters like Ian Huntley, who murdered two small children, be put to the rope?

Is there a line that should never be crossed?

And if you do should you pay the ultimate price?

Pro or anti I would welcome opinions

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

1) Capital punishment works in the sense that the bastard is dead....

2) Rope.. Rounds, electricity... What's the difference?

3) Yes... You should have to pay for your actions.

 

[Eg.]

yep, that and it costs less to kill em than to keep em alive

 

[bvasgm]

1) No. Not as we have it now..sticking someone with a needle isn't a punishment.
2) Yes. For killing small kids they should deffinately be "put to the rope".
3) Imagine someone just killed your four year old daughter then ask that question again...

 

[Apos]

No. There is no legitimate reason to execute someone that's already under lock and key. Killing is appropriate only when there is litterally no better option: self-defense, war, etc. Killing a criminal who is already locked up serves no legitimate purpose other than demonstrating that we can all stoop to their level.

Nor does it cost less than keeping them alive (legal fees necessary to ensure that they are truly guilty, and truly deserve to die are much higher than maintainence fees).

 

[Apos]

Oh, the questions:

1. Work to do what?
2. No, the children are dead: killing Huntley won't bring them back. Exacting revenge won't make a difference.
3. There are many lines that should not be crossed. Making someone pay "the ultimate price" is one of them.

 

[DarkStar]

It essentially amounts to government sanctioned revenge killing.

The civilized world should put execution behind it once and for all.

 

[baxter]

1. Work to do what?

Work as a deterrent?

 

[KoreBolteR]

yeah people like Ian Huntly need to be totrured for life. not "put on the rope".. thats an easy way out imo.

also it will make Prisons less congested.

and stop people committing the crimes in the first place... :hmph:

 

[Ikerous]

I highly doubt it's much of a deterrent, just look at the US.

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

 

[KoreBolteR]

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

actually, no. not kill them.. torture them for life.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Some of you have probably heard this.

TEHRAN: Justice took a long time to catch up with the man they called the Vampire of the Desert. Death came just as slowly.

In a barbaric execution, the serial child killer was flogged at the stake, stabbed in the back by the 17-year-old brother of one of his victims and stoned by the chanting mob.

Then, to shouts of "make him twist", he was hoisted up on a crane by a noose that had been placed around his neck by the mother of another victim.

It took more than five minutes for him to choke to death, while he was taunted and spat at. "Dance and think of what you did to our kids," one bereaved father shouted.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1268&storyid=2826383

Now would that deter people from comitting crimes? Pff who bloody knows.

 

[Kangy]

No, neigh, never.

Capital punishment solves bugger all. The victims aren't magically alive again, and I doubt it brings much comfort to a family that another human (albeit, a murderous one) with a family had to die.

 

[el Chi]

actually, no. not kill them.. torture them for life.

I hope you don't actually believe that. That's utterly abominable, contravenes any human rights resolution ever passed and if that were the punishment in another country, you'd be disgusted.
Two wrongs don't make a right and there is very little evidence that the death penalty acts as any form of deterrent whatsoever, if at all.
Huntley's acts were inexcusable, but the man was mentally unwell. That isn't an excuse for his actions, but the fact is that that sort of instability does not contemplate the potential punishment before it acts.

And baxter - I haven't really heard any "rising support" for the death penalty in this country, thank Christ. Not even the Tories would reintorduce it, anyway.

 

[kirovman]

I hope you don't actually believe that. That's utterly abominable, contravenes any human rights resolution ever passed and if that were the punishment in another country, you'd be disgusted.
Two wrongs don't make a right and there is very little evidence that the death penalty acts as any form of deterrent whatsoever, if at all.
Huntley's acts were inexcusable, but the man was mentally unwell. That isn't an excuse for his actions, but the fact is that that sort of instability does not contemplate the potential punishment before it acts.

And baxter - I haven't really heard any "rising support" for the death penalty in this country, thank Christ. Not even the Tories would reintorduce it, anyway.

I think we signed a treaty/thingy with the EU on civil and human rights, and included was a part about banning capital punishment.

At the time we abolished it all together (1998 I think) the only excutable offences were treason and piracy of the high seas (ahar!).

But I guess if Kilroy's party were to get into power (heh- not likely), or other ultra nationalist parties, and we pulled out of Europe, the death penalty would probably come back.

Anyway I don't believe in capital punishment for a number of reasons:

-Sometimes innocent people are put to death, even when they were once found "guilty beyond all doubt"...it's not possible to find people guilty beyond all doubt unless they were caught clearly on camera. You can get let out of prison, but you can't get let off the death penatly once it's happened.

-Killing is murder, even when it's state endorsed. Maybe not true in the case of war, but killing someone you have already captured is murder.

-Capital Punishment is just revenge. The only punishment they get from it is the mental torture of waiting on death row, and possibly an agonising painful death. Torture is not humane. Revenge is a primitive way to resolve things, justice is needed not revenge.

-It is barbaric. Look at this list of countries that use it as an acceptable form of punishment. The only developed countries I can see that use it are Japan, South Korea, Singapore and the USA.
Even countries like Russia have pledged in recent years not to carry out the death penalty.

-It does not usually bring comfort to the family of the victim. They have already lost their loved one, and another death is not going to bring them back. Do many families really feel justice was done when the execution happens? In this country, I'm sure they wouldn't.

It could be you standing on death row one day, falsely accused of a murder. Imagine how that would feel. Tick Tock.

 

[el Chi]

But I guess if Kilroy's party were to get into power (heh- not likely), or other ultra nationalist parties, and we pulled out of Europe, the death penalty would probably come back.

If Kilroy, UKIP or the BNP get into power (said with all due humility) I won't rest till their heads are on spikes and I'm king of everywhere.

-It does not usually bring comfort to the family of the victim. They have already lost their loved one, and another death is not going to bring them back. Do many families really feel justice was done when the execution happens? In this country, I'm sure they wouldn't.

I would seriously question the moral integrity of the family who feel vindicated and relieved that the murderer had been executed. It's so worringly blood thirsty; aren't we supposed to be more advanced beings than that?

 

[Razor]

If Kilroy, UKIP or the BNP get into power (said with all due humility) I won't rest till their heads are on spikes and I'm king of everywhere.


I would seriously question the moral integrity of the family who feel vindicated and relieved that the murderer had been executed. It's so worringly blood thirsty; aren't we supposed to be more advanced beings than that?

No matter how advanced we got as a people, we will always be human.

I don't ever think about questioning anyones moral integrity unless you have been through the same situation they have.

 

[PvtRyan]

1: Work? To deter or something? Of course not, someone who is capable of murdering two children isn't suddenly stopping his plans to do so because he knows he could die if he gets caught.
2 and 3: No, it's an easy escape, being put in prison for the rest of your life is much more of a punishment, and works just as well for keeping soceity safe from them. You can't punish someone who is dead. And why would you kill someone for a crime? So the victim's relatives can rest in peace? I doubt it would solve a lot for me, knowing the government has only added another griefing family to the list.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

It's just such a drain on the system though. Tax money keeping them in jail and such. If only we could send them offworld to do hard slave labour for the rest of their lives under the watchful eye of robots with whips.

 

[PvtRyan]

It's just such a drain on the system though. Tax money keeping them in jail and such. If only we could send them offworld to do hard slave labour for the rest of their lives under the watchful eye of robots with whips.

Yeah, but they'd start their own country and stuff. * glances at Australia *

But life in prison is cheaper than deathpenalty.

 

[furiousV]

from what i hear in the papers, prisoners are living a more luxurious life than i am, and im paying for that!? lets take ian huntley, he didnt only kill two girls, he murdered them. a while later, he is 'safe' inside a castle, getting to watch probably jsut about as much TV as he wants, and he gets decent food (which my mum cant do, despite she left now), and he even gets a video games console (which my parents never would have bought me)
imho he does not deserve to live, after denying other people, little girls in fact, the right to live themselves.
im sure he would have thought twice about what he is doing if he knew there is a death sentence, instead of being safe from the hands of angry and upset parents/family/friends.
prison isnt much of a punishment anymore, prisoners getting all them human rights, makes them free really, only behind high walls (and a curfew)

and lets take other criminals, mafia-wannabes, or other serial-killers, they go to jail. and guess what! they are in a place where there are many like them! must be their heaven. make new friends, make new contacts, and even establish a network!

whats more, once they are free from jail, ALL CRIMINALS simply walk out, 'learning from their mistakes' in order to be a better criminal.

but im not saying lets execute every person that commits a crime, there must be certain conditions first. such as repeating the same crime, the severity of the crime and so on.

thats about what ive got to say for now, i gotta catch a bus for work.

 

[PvtRyan]

im sure he would have thought twice about what he is doing if he knew there is a death sentence

Apparently, according to the opening post, there was still a death sentence at the time he committed these murders. Guess it didn't help much, did it?

 

[baxter]

Apparently, according to the opening post, there was still a death sentence at the time he committed these murders. Guess it didn't help much, did it?

The death penalty was still in place when the Moors murderers commited thier crimes, not Ian Huntley but you are correct it didn't deter.

 

[el Chi]

from what i hear in the papers, prisoners are living a more luxurious life than i am, and im paying for that!? lets take ian huntley, he didnt only kill two girls, he murdered them. a while later, he is 'safe' inside a castle, getting to watch probably jsut about as much TV as he wants, and he gets decent food

The media loves to sensationalise. I'd be interested to know exactly to what extent those claims are "facts".
It's always papers like The Daily Mail and The Sun that raise hell about this and they've got such blatant agendas, it's sickening.I wouldn't piss on the editors from those papers if they were on fire.
Of course Huntley doesn't deserve to have TVs etc etc. However if you DON'T put him into a "safe" cell, then he'd be torn apart in minutes, which is even WORSE than a state-endorsed death penalty.

prison isnt much of a punishment anymore, prisoners getting all them human rights, makes them free really, only behind high walls (and a curfew)

I'll believe that claim of yours once you've served five years of your life locked away from friends and family, surrounded by some unsavory characters and a depressing routine.
I don't understand people who claim that prison is like some big happy holiday camp when it clearly isn't; why do you think people so desperately try to evade capture or escape from prisons?
Also, these papers scream out in horror when they see brutal, degrading prisons in other countries, but we should probably have it here, because that wouldn't be unacceptable. Nor would it be hypocritical in the slightest.

whats more, once they are free from jail, ALL CRIMINALS simply walk out, 'learning from their mistakes' in order to be a better criminal.

It must be true: The Mail told me so! People complain about re-offenders, but then they complain when prisoners are given help to gain some qualifications as part of a rehabilitative scheme.
So what's your suggestion?

 

[baxter]

I started this thread with an open mind on this matter and after reading the opinions of others believe that capital punishment does not work, and is not a deterrent.
If capital punishment worked then nobody would ever be executed, but for every single execution it simply reinforces the fact that capital punishment as failed as a deterrent.
When revolting and repulsive acts are committed it is in our nature to cry for blood and revenge. Lynch mobs prove this.
I feel that no matter what our repulsion to other individual’s acts capital punishment is not the answer.
Myra Hindley died in prison unloved and uncared for. I wish the same fate on Huntley and any other repulsive creatures like him

 

[kirovman]

This is an interesting article: http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=208498

Every year the British parliment voted on the restoration of the death penalty, up until 1998. Margaret Thatcher was a supporter of the restoration too.

THE ritual of a “free vote” on the restoration of the death penalty gave rise to great parliamentary occasions. Alas, no more. On May 20th the United Kingdom ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights promising never to restore the death penalty. It will now be virtually impossible ever to hold another free vote on hanging. No one noticed.

If Britain ever restored the death penalty, it would have to repudiate not only the protocol, but the entire European Convention, and would then face expulsion from the Council of Europe, a 41-strong grouping of democracies. This is not impossible, but is almost unthinkable. Britain was a founder member of the council 50 years ago and has just incorporated the European convention into British law. The EU is also committed to pushing for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide. And the government is in the process of ratifying the Second Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, further binding the hands of any future government.

What is most remarkable about this is that it has caused no fuss at all. The Conservatives always argued that Britain could not ratify these protocols because MPs had a right to hold free votes on the subject. Some 14 such votes have been held since hanging was abolished for ordinary crimes in a free vote in 1965. The last attempt at restoration was in 1994. The parliamentary majority for continued abolition has steadily grown, even in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher was a keen supporter of restoration.

On coming into office Labour first adopted a similar position: future free votes on hanging were sacrosanct. But after pressure from backbenchers, it quietly changed its mind. Almost unnoticed, it has not only committed Britain internationally to continued abolition, but has also abolished, on free votes, the death penalty for treason, piracy and the remaining handful of military offences to which it could be applied.

Most likely, the British public remains in favour of hanging. Pollsters hardly ask about it any more, but as recently as 1995 a MORI poll found that 76% of respondents thought the death penalty was sometimes justified, and 80% wanted a referendum held on the subject. So much for democracy.

According to the Economist, 1999.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Its interesting that it says in that article "So much for democracy"
Democracy is flawed in that aspect, as the majority simply cannot have the right to take life.



They should be put to work, or made to do national service.

I remember they used to have criminals doing community service around here, and one year they planted flowers. Months later, the flowers stood in their full glory, spelling out a certain profanity that starts with F.

I thought it was the most hilarious tihng ever...But some people didn't and now they aren't allowed to to sue criminals for that.


I don't think things like community service (and I mean real community service, not just crappy jobs for low offenders) shouldn't even be seen as punishment or torture (working them really hard) but simply as a consequence of their actions. Do this, and that will happen. Criminals really should be used to serve some purpose, rather than locking them away, which doesn't really solve any problems, it just hides them under the carpet.

 

[kirovman]

It's true, they should be made to serve some purpose, instead of being swept under the carpet.

Prison is a very old concept, I'm suprised we haven't come up with anything better. The idea of prison is you should give up your freedoms, and many of your rights as ordinary citizens have.

Well, you could still take away their freedom, keep them from harming society and getting any of the benefits of society, while making them serve the society that they harmed.
But that wouldn't necessarily involve putting them all in a huge building where they could meet worse criminals, learn a few more tricks before they come out. At least you could isolate them from each other, or only let them mix in small, random groups which are changed regularly, so they can't make friends on the inside.

I'm sure there must be some way to combine humanity, repaying society and a deterant against commiting crime together.

What that is, I don't know.

 

[Edcrab]

I have no faith in our current justice system whatsoever. The reliance on juries and judges hardly inspires me with confidence- what right do 12 run-of-the-mill individuals with no knowledge of the legal system have to pass judgement on another? In fact, what right does some ponce in a wig have to pass sentence- and frequently make a mockery of the judicial process?

Let's take a recent example back in Blighty- a 13 year old who raped his teacher and stole her car (he was 12 at the time) was sentenced to life- i.e., he'd spend the rest of his natural existence within the rehabiliation systems of prisons, mental wards and similar institutes.

And a week later two teenagers- one 16, the other 17- threw a 15 year old with learning difficulties into a river, during a school outing. They had got themselves intoxicated, apparently, on lager they'd covertly drank, then proceeded to dump the boy in the water- ignoring his pleas and his cries that he couldn't swim.

Their total sentences amounted to less than two years.

Moral of this story- rape is far worse than murder. Or, perhaps, we need to review the system.

I, personally, believe in executing the unrepentant. We have, for example, caught the exploits of one particular physciatric patient on camera or through dozens of witnesses. He kept killing, and we kept letting him out. Many considered him incurable, and yet he was allowed to- on two seperate occasions after his first offence- murder two more people. He should be locked up permanently or, more practically, disposed of.

I believe prison terms need to be harsher, and I believe that life sentences should be life sentences, not pathetic copouts like twenty or even ten years.

If we lock a man up for ten years for murder, and he offends again (which is rarer than certain tabloids claim), he should be given a true life sentence on the spot. Or killed.

Ironic that back in the "bad old days", we hung people liberally because it was far cheaper than prison- back when there were no real government bodies to monitor the process or authorise appeals, none of that "justice" stuff- just a man with an axe, or someone who could lend a gallows to the process.

So, ultimately, I believe we should execute our worst offenders, and by that I mean cases where there is no doubt whatsoever that they've commited the crime in question. In which case, it should be made far cheaper to kill them.

As for "state sanctioned murder", surely that makes fines or repossessions something as sensationalist and melodramatic as "state sanctioned theft"? You "rob" a company by failing to pay them, and they send large men round to "steal" the sum back, plus extra, while remaining perfectly legal?

As El Chi is well aware, I'm a complete bastard, and I don't advocate the death penalty as a deterrant or even punishment, merely as a way of ridding society of people who, quite bluntly, don't deserve to live among us.

 

[baxter]

QUOTE]And a week later two teenagers- one 16, the other 17- threw a 15 year old with learning difficulties into a river, during a school outing. They had got themselves intoxicated, apparently, on lager they'd covertly drank, then proceeded to dump the boy in the water- ignoring his pleas and his cries that he couldn't swim[/QUOTE]

As a parent I found this story horrific and the sentence a joke.

I'm a complete bastard, and I don't advocate the death penalty as a deterrent or even punishment, merely as a way of ridding society of people who, quite bluntly, don't deserve to live among us.

The reason I am against capital punishment is not that I am turning into a do gooder but is doesn't work. It doesn't deter.
I stated that Myra Hindley died in prison after years of total social isolation. It is pleasing to know that a bitch like that spent year’s ,suffering physiologically.

I believe prison terms need to be harsher, and I believe that life sentences should be life sentences, not pathetic copouts like twenty or even ten years

Agreed totally and again it is good to know that Ian Huntley is right now suffering the same fate as Myra Hindley. A slow, long, torturous death. I hope he rots in jail for years and finally dies a sad lonely broken old man. I just feel that capital punishment for these guys is an easy way out. Let them suffer, in jail, in isolation. No future, no hope.

 

[Edcrab]

Now that's a viewpoint I can understand and, if anything, support fully- it's just that, from an economic standpoint, it beggars belief that in todays world an execution costs 1.7 times more than a thirty year sentence (although that outdated piece of statistical drivel is likely to be corrected by a more well informed forumite).

Since (particular) crimes are still on the rise you could argue that prison itself isn't a detterant- but personally I think that's due to the poor sentences passed rather than the concept of incarceration itself.

Building more and more jails for the rising number of inmates is hardly practical, of course- killing the overflow off might help. Perhaps if rotting in jail is the worst possible punishment, we should execute some of the less repulsive offenders (say a double killer rather than a genocidal sadist) and spare them the torment.

 

[el Chi]

Prison is a very old concept, I'm suprised we haven't come up with anything better. The idea of prison is you should give up your freedoms, and many of your rights as ordinary citizens have.

Sure, one should be giving up certain freedoms when put in prison as punishment. However prisons are also supposed to be about rehabilitation and I'm not sure how well they succeed in that respect. I'm sure there are lots of people who come out wanting to be more honest people, but then they can't get "honest" jobs because they have that blotch on their permanent record. So then, you get the problem of reoffenders.
However, some prisoners are given the opportunity to take courses, be it vocational or otherwise, in the hope that when they leave, they'll be better prepared to get a job and be more employable. It also suggests a desire to lead a life away from crime.
Some people complain about this; why should their tax money be spent on these criminals getting qualifications that a lot of people don't have the opportunity to get? I understand that annoyance, but if you don't do that, then you stand less of a chance of genuinely rehabilitating someone, and up the possibilities for reoffenders.

Prison needs to be a combination of punishment and rehabilitation.

 

[furiousV]

Prison needs to be a combination of punishment and rehabilitation.

then there are those that are proud of their crimes.
and look at Ian Huntley, hes not sorry for what he has done.
infact, he is writing a book on what he has done!!!! he is mocking us, our system and our society.

prison should be for minor or first time offenders, who will learn their wrong that time. but if somebody comes in for a second sentence, what do you think he will learn from that? if you dont change the first time, you wont change at all. we should not let those kinds of people back into our society to be allowed to commit a 3rd and 4th crime, maybe this time even escaping capture.

i can understand people might pity the criminals, maybe a bad childhood, go to jail, and be given the opportunity to learn what they have done is wrong, and the opportunity to make things right (despite you cant bring somebody back from the dead) but try and live a better life (at least not commiting crimes, stealing, get a job etc)
but if he repeats those offenses, hes obviously not going to change, why should us, the tax payers, waste our money for their hospitality? to think, we could have a better healthcare system, improvements to our schools, endless things to make better. plus our jails wouldnt be so overcrowded, making us taxpayers pay even more to get those extended or new ones built.

 

[short recoil]

I'm not sure about this, there are many points to take into account.

For:
-They die, no money has to be kept to keep them alive.
-Most people really fear death and see it as ultimate punishment.
-They "deserve" death for what they have done.
-Families of victims can "relax" after the criminal is dead.

Against:
-Misjustice......what if you get the wrong guy?
-Killing a person is wrong no matter what
-Family of criminal effected?
-People going on a massacre would know they are going to die, rather than sitting in jail for the rest of their life........suicidal people would be happier to go postal......getting caught would just mean death like they are planning anyway.

And many other points

At the end of the day it will be one of these things that will never be settled, an impossible choice for humans to make for everyone to be happy.........as with most things.

I dont see why a killer (or any person for that matter) should be kept in a high security prison being fed for their life for no reason........its a waste of money.
Criminals are just people who do something outside the rules of other humans......one day i could be a criminal if i kept my airguns.
Deliberate cold blooded murder will be the only thing that will almost 100% certainly stay highly illeagal throughout the world as long as humans impose rules.
Murderers are the obvious choice for execution, they have taken another life (or more)...they should have theirs taken.

I remain undecided completely, i find it hard to decide.
Animals with rules.......it will never work perfectly cleany unless everyone is the same (equilibrium style)

 

[el Chi]

then there are those that are proud of their crimes.
and look at Ian Huntley, hes not sorry for what he has done.
infact, he is writing a book on what he has done!!!! he is mocking us, our system and our society.

I would have thought it was self-evident that Huntley is not only unwell and beyond rehabilitation but also that he is far from representative of the people who go through our prison system. Thus, I hardly think my comments are applicable in his case.

He'll find a publisher, sadly; it may prove to be a fascinating insight into the psyche of someone like that. On the other hand, it could be chilling, sensationalist bollocks. Probably the latter.

prison should be for minor or first time offenders, who will learn their wrong that time. but if somebody comes in for a second sentence, what do you think he will learn from that? if you dont change the first time, you wont change at all. we should not let those kinds of people back into our society to be allowed to commit a 3rd and 4th crime, maybe this time even escaping capture.

Well, one does have to wonder at what point we should stop giving people the benefit of the doubt. But consider this: Let's say we work under a "Three strikes and you're out" system. A man breaks into a few cars and steals some stereoes, etc. He goes to jail. He comes out, reoffends - maybe not car stereoes, but something similarly far from a grave crime (let's say it does not directly harm other human beings). Once again, prison, release, reoffend. So what then? I'm not denying that it's ridiculous, but how should he be punished for that? 20 years? Seems a bit like overkill, or there'd have to be some very flexible boundaries.

Like I said; a man is far less likely to reoffend if he's had the chance to gain some qualifications or find his way back into "honest" society. But it can be hard to do that; all to often you come out of prison, no-one'll give you work 'cause you're an ex-con, you may reoffend, you go back to jail. And so the merry cycle continues foreverandeveramen.
<Sighs>

 

[Vigilante]

Kill the bastard, I dont care. I'm a believer in an eye or an eye when it comes to murder.

 

[el Chi]

Kill the bastard, I dont care. I'm a believer in an eye or an eye when it comes to murder.

"An eye for an eye will make all the world blind."
- Mahatma Ghandi

 

[KoreBolteR]

i dont think we should kill a man that wants to kill you instantly, just torture him for 500 hours. then kill him.



he shouldnt try to kill someone then should he, its his fault for getting killed, by trying to kill other people.

"people who try to kill, shall be killed themselves, like a virus in a PC"

 

[furiousV]

or instead of torturing him, we give an offender, like a thief, 5 or 10 lashes then release him (ok lashes are harsh, but something similar), as they say, no pain no gain
but again, not every single offender. first jail and the chance to rehabilate and improve himself, 2nd time something more severe, then 3rd try use physical punishment, such as what i mentioned.
murderers, on the other hand, should be given different treatment.
think about it, would anybody sane go and kill somebody, for somebodys first time doing so, it is a life-changing experience. hell never be the same ever again.
different crimes should have different methods, accordign to the severity of it.

 

[Edcrab]

"An eye for an eye will make all the world blind."

"A blind murderer will find it intensely difficult to murder someone else. Oh, and Ghandi- and Churchill, come to think of it- famously spoke in praise of Hitler. Just because you utilise non-violent methods doesn't necessarily mean your cause is justifiable or good."

-Ed