Crime and Punishment: How can you decide?

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady_MAC Cruel and unusual punishment.. illegal. That's why.

Considering how many people around the world starve to death every single day, I'd say that confining a violent criminal to a cell and feeding them daily isn't terribly cruel or unusual.

Seriously, how hard is it for people to understand that if you don't want to go to jail for the rest of your life, don't freaking kill people? I'm SO tired of this "poor me" BS from criminals. It's pretty damn obvious to every functional human in the US that it is ILLEGAL to harm other people, not to mention morally wrong.

 

[*Stargazer*]

And on the topic of the woman who is a paranoid schizophrenic, this is horribly politically incorrect, but she shouldn't have been allowed to raise her children. Yes, I'll probably get stoned for that, but if she's a diagnosed schizophrenic who isn't taking her meds, her children should have been far, far out of her reach and everyone who enabled her to commit this crime bears responsibility.

 

[YvetteJeannine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady_MAC I see what you're saying, but to be guilty, you must know that you have done something wrong. We learned in law that there is no crime without actus reus + mens rea, meaning that while there may have been an act, there is no guilty mind. When you think about it, many of them are not getting off (unless we're talking temporary insanity). They get shoved in an insane asylum, which isn't all that much better.

Yes. Under the United States law, to be legally declared insane, a person must NOT know what they are doing at the time of the crime. There is also the Temporary Insanity defense...where one knows it was wrong after the crime has been committed, but subsequently did not understand their culpability, and the fact that what they were doing was wrong while in the act of committing the crime.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by YvetteJeannine Yes. Under the United States law, to be legally declared insane, a person must NOT know what they are doing at the time of the crime. There is also the Temporary Insanity defense...where one knows it was wrong after the crime has been committed, but subsequently did not understand their culpability, and the fact that what they were doing was wrong while in the act of committing the crime.

I still think the temporary insanity defense is a whole bunch of bs. We've all done things we've regretted in emotional fits before. But to claim you suddenly "forgot" that killing someone is wrong is a whole bunch of BS in my opinion. Everyone has flipped out on someone before, be it a child, a pet, a friend, or whatever, when they did something that really pushed your buttons and made you so upset that you lost control. But even in those situations, I think it's fairly far fetched to think that you suddenyl forgot that what you were doing was going to hurt the other person, or was wrong. Be it directly, or indirectly (breaking something they care about for instance). You did what you did because you know it's going to hurt them. I dont think making someone hurt like your hurting emotionally at the time is a valid escuse. Especially if it leads to the death of another person. I dont care how angry someone got, or the fact that they just "snapped" and went into a blind rage. There is no escuse for that, ever.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Do you really trust someone who has the capacity to commit such heinous crimes to perform work in an acceptable manner? At least, any work that is truly beneficial to society? And, when is the murder of four children a debt t hat can be worked off? When is that debt repaid?

I think there is plenty of work to be done picking up trash next to a freeway, clearing brush from the bases of trees to help reduce the possibility of a fire, and any other menial labor tasks that need to be done on a consistant basis that incarcerated individuals could easily do for little to no pay.

Throw an ankle bracelet on them that gives their position via GPS. Have an acceptable number of armed guards with doggies watching over them, and put em to work.

I'm sure there are plenty of, "fool proof jobs" you could put these people to work doing. They have a lifetime sentance to work at it.

 

[Shimmer]

YOU think. YOU think that work balances out the flight risk for these individuals. The prison system, and those in charge directly of those prisoners, disagrees.

An ankle bracelet system requires money for technology that the prison systems don't have. Having enough guards alongside the prisoners to lessen the flight risk, money.

The correctional facilities put inmates to work (yeps, doing what you're mentioning) but the high profile killers, the Scott Petersons and the Susan Smiths and the flight risks can't be put out there. We (as a nation) simply don't have the funds to maintain appropriate security.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer YOU think. YOU think that work balances out the flight risk for these individuals. The prison system, and those in charge directly of those prisoners, disagrees. An ankle bracelet system requires money for technology that the prison systems don't have. Having enough guards alongside the prisoners to lessen the flight risk, money. The correctional facilities put inmates to work (yeps, doing what you're mentioning) but the high profile killers, the Scott Petersons and the Susan Smiths and the flight risks can't be put out there. We (as a nation) simply don't have the funds to maintain appropriate security.

Put a hampster wheel in their cell and make then run on it 8 hours a day to help generate power for the prison and surrounding cities. =P

Just gotta get creative

 

[Shimmer]

You're s till hampered by finances.

 

[Shimmer]

That's notto say I disagree.
The "good" inmates generally get like garden duty, wash duty, trash duty, dump duty, cook duty, things like that.

But the type of offenders who get death row?
No.
The flight risk is too high.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer You're s till hampered by finances.

Your right, the trillions they have spent on Iraq should have been spent improving things inside our own country, before blowing up other people's.

 

[Shimmer]

The money spent in Iraq isn't state money, it's federal.
States are responsible for prison maintenance, except federal prisons.
The majority of offenders end up in state run facilities, which leads to the same financial issues.

 

[Lady_MAC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 Considering how many people around the world starve to death every single day, I'd say that confining a violent criminal to a cell and feeding them daily isn't terribly cruel or unusual. Seriously, how hard is it for people to understand that if you don't want to go to jail for the rest of your life, don't freaking kill people? I'm SO tired of this "poor me" BS from criminals. It's pretty damn obvious to every functional human in the US that it is ILLEGAL to harm other people, not to mention morally wrong.

It is still cruel. Very few people are able to "adapt" to those conditions, as human beings are social creatures. Long term solitary usually results in psychological problems.. it is truly torture. But hey, I should not have said anything in the first place, I'm talking to Americans and your laws are different. Your country and Israel has legalized certain methods of mental torture (learned that my first week & didn't remember until I studied for today's test).

Sure some people cannot be rehabilitated, but even more can. How are we helping by locking them up and throwing away the key? Shovin' 'em in solitary defeats the purpose of jail..

 

[Beauty Mark]

I'm not being a smartass, but how do you propose that people deal with extreme crimes? I believe many people in jail can be rehabilitated (thieves, drug dealers, some murderers), but there many who cannot.

For me, I'm sicken that there are people who kill in cold blood or rape and that they're treated, to some extent, pretty well compared to the homeless or extremely impoverished.

 

[Lady_MAC]

I guess the more I have learned about criminology and penology my opinion on criminals has shifted. While I agree that criminals are treated far better than many homeless, among others, I do not believe that those who have committed crimes should be treated any worse because of that.

To be honest, I am not sure what needs to be done to make their rehabilitation successful. All I know is that we should not give up on them as a sentence of life in prison does come to an end, and we need to make their entrance back in to society as smooth as possible(LIP is 25 years at the very most here).

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady_MAC To be honest, I am not sure what needs to be done to make their rehabilitation successful. All I know is that we should not give up on them as a sentence of life in prison does come to an end, and we need to make their entrance back in to society as smooth as possible(LIP is 25 years at the very most here).

That's the crux of the problem. Life in prison should be LIFE in prison. These violent criminals cannot be safely rehabbed. Particularly those who commit sex crimes.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Do you think most people who rape, kill, etc. consider the consequences? Would enforcing a true "life in prison" sentence make a difference in the number of crimes committed?

 

[*Stargazer*]

It would mean that THOSE people don't do it again. The number of repeat violent offenders in this country is DISGRACEFUL. Tell the parents of Jessica Lunsford or Polly Klaas that a true life in prison sentence wouldn't have made a difference.