Is prison good?

[Cables]

Yes, we're getting dangerous people out of the public, feeding and clothing them, and giving them shelter.

We let them go outside for most of the day, sometimes giving them reading material, medicine, a TV.

But lets say there's a person, a psychopathic killer, who can't be rehabilitated at all whatsoever, does he deserve to die?

Do you think the government should have the right to say who gets to die and who doesn't?

I'm still pondering, I'm not sure what I think. Maybe hearing your opinions might help me a little.

[TonyAfro]

At 7/17/09 02:40 AM, Cables wrote: But lets say there's a person, a psychopathic killer, who can't be rehabilitated at all whatsoever, does he deserve to die?

Do you think the government should have the right to say who gets to die and who doesn't?

You do bring up some good points, i.e. government deciding who can die ect.

I feel if you kill someone you should be killed in the same way you killed them. now, this contradicts things bc who can you get do kill this man, and how can't you punish them for their crime?

So I conclusion, I say If you kill someone, you'll be put in solitary confinement with food everyone other day. If they die, they die, if they don't it's a torturous life and they deserve it. I don't want to hear that bullshit that; that person, "is the victim" because daddy didn't hug them. A person deserves punishment for their actions regardless of mental, or physical conditions.

Just because a depressed kid cuts himself doesn't mean he's "victim to depression" and shouldn't be yelled at for cutting himself, he did what he did.

I like to jump around on answers...so sorry if it looks like I have ADD,

[Elfer]

Yeah, see the reason that the death penalty and cruel/unusual punishments are generally bad ideas is because sometimes people are falsely convicted of a crime.

If you figure that out a few years too late, it's pretty hard to just say "Whoopsy" and have everything be okay.

[Jon-86]

At 7/17/09 07:41 AM, Elfer wrote: If you figure that out a few years too late, it's pretty hard to just say "Whoopsy" and have everything be okay.

Ahhhh now, we live in a perfect world remember...That kind of thing would never happen so.....

[DizzeeRascal]

From a purely economic standpoint, capital punishment is less cost effective than keeping people in prison, since those sentenced to capital punishment cost more on appeals upkeep etc.

Some exampes by state

From a moral standpoint, whilst I do think some crimes do merit death, the possibility of the killing of an innocent dying for a crime they didn't commit is far too high a risk to have to ever take.

[Ericho]

That's more of a question of the death penalty, but not prison.

Anyway, I believe that if something is a mass murderer I do support death penalty, but not for things below that such as one count of murder (maybe two).

[satanbrain]

in my country, death penalty allowed only for war criminals. and High Court of Justice can vetoed the government decision.

[Tancrisism]

At 7/17/09 07:53 AM, DizzeeRascal wrote: From a moral standpoint, whilst I do think some crimes do merit death, the possibility of the killing of an innocent dying for a crime they didn't commit is far too high a risk to have to ever take.

Exactly, and that is where the difficulty of the death penalty comes in. I'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man be behind bars, or die because of something he did not do.

About the idea of governments being able to kill, I ask: what about war? It still baffles me that killing in war can be seen as a different kind of killing.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 7/17/09 03:40 AM, TonyAfro wrote:

At 7/17/09 02:40 AM, Cables wrote:

I feel if you kill someone you should be killed in the same way you killed them.

For the sake of irony, fine. But other then that, it doesn't do much.

So I conclusion, I say If you kill someone, you'll be put in solitary confinement with food everyone other day.

Doing good so far.

If they die, they die, if they don't it's a torturous life and they deserve it.

You're on a roll.

I don't want to hear that bullshit that; that person, "is the victim" because daddy didn't hug them.

Now you've fallen flat, because it does happen. Ed Gein is a perfect example.

A person deserves punishment for their actions regardless of mental, or physical conditions.

Not quite. A person who cannot control his actions or has brain damage should not suffer the same consequences and punishment as someone who acted deliberately. Would you punish a child the same way for doing something stupid as you would an adult who performed the same action? No, because chances are the child is unaware of what he/she has done, whereas the adult probably knows too well about his/her actions.

Just because a depressed kid cuts himself doesn't mean he's "victim to depression" and shouldn't be yelled at for cutting himself, he did what he did.

He did what he did BECAUSE of the depression. As hard as it is to believe, we're never in control of actions 100% of the time.

[All-American-Badass]

I strongly support the death penalty, i believe the supreme court fucked up when they decided only crimes that result in an intentional death can be punishable by death, i believe rape should also be punishable by death . Plus with all the advancements being made in investigation technology(DNA evidence being the the main one) the chances of there being a false conviction of a crime that warrants the death penalty are way less than they were a while ago.

[BobMarleyGhost]

Eye for an Eye http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/post/reply /1082895#

[UploaderX]

Some prisons could be regular ones, most prisons are not good, you could be a Hannibal there.

[JackTipper]

At 7/17/09 02:40 AM, Cables wrote: Yes, we're getting dangerous people out of the public, feeding and clothing them, and giving them shelter.

We let them go outside for most of the day, sometimes giving them reading material, medicine, a TV.

You obviously know nothing about the prison system and it shows through your post. You know how expensive it is to have someone in prison? Outside for most of the day my ass. In GP that's not happening at all and God forbid a fight breaks out and you're involved you'll be in the SHU with one hour outside of your cell and only food from the prison kitchen to eat even if you have commissary to buy a better meal. Cold ass hard rice in a dark cold cell doesn't sound like the fantasy land you depict prison to be. There is nothing good about prison period. Their not sending people to Disney world.

Do you think the government should have the right to say who gets to die and who doesn't?

I'm still pondering, I'm not sure what I think. Maybe hearing your opinions might help me a little.

Are you talking about the death penalty? Not sure on specifics but I wouldn't be surprised if a few states still had that. My thoughts on that are no. Government should have the power to choose whether a man lives or dies. Their power has expanded on enough issues for people to start taking care of their own affairs. Government has grown too big, speaking from the US stand point.

[JackTipper]

When I asked about you knowing how expensive prison can be I meant for the family. Not the state.

[nehemiah135]

well if this psychopathic killer murdered then they should die because I'm sure the family of that person would want the psychopathic killer dead. it doesn't matter if they could be rehabilitated or not. Like to stick to the rule of an eye for an eye.

[Korriken]

Thanks to advances in forensic technology, the odds of the wrong person being convicted are incredibly slim. most of these "wrongful convictions" that the libs try to throw in our faces are 10+ years ago, when forensic technology was nowhere near as good as what we have today.

as far as the death penalty goes... there's 6 billion people on earth, I'm sure we could get rid of a few, especially the ones who want to go around and do harm to other people.

an individual Human life has very little value, the fact that people try to cling onto every life they can is outright absurd. "every life is precious!" pfft. right.

Also, for those who want to try and use the bible to fight against capital punishment should actually consider reading it instead of slamming your hand on it screaming that "god is against it!" There is more to it than what your liberal uhh... "pastor/preacher/etc" is telling you. he's cherry picking the feel good parts out to keep you coming to his house of blasphemy so he can rake in your tithes.

[iXenocider]

To tell you the truth, I disagree with the government with killing the prisoners. Who cares if they raped and murder your friend or sister or mother. Doesn't mean they should die. I'm sure making them work hard on a field with 12 guards with sniper rifles in hand will make them back in shape.

[Me-Patch]

Questions about jail? Ask away. I can provide some first hand insight.

[thedo12]

At 7/18/09 02:09 AM, Korriken wrote: Thanks to advances in forensic technology, the odds of the wrong person being convicted are incredibly slim. most of these "wrongful convictions" that the libs try to throw in our faces are 10+ years ago, when forensic technology was nowhere near as good as what we have today.

incredibly slim /= none

one innocent death is worse then a letting a thousand guilty men go free

as far as the death penalty goes... there's 6 billion people on earth, I'm sure we could get rid of a few, especially the ones who want to go around and do harm to other people.

oh wow,

"theres lots of people , lets just start killing some !" , I mean don't you see any value in human life?

an individual Human life has very little value, the fact that people try to cling onto every life they can is outright absurd. "every life is precious!" pfft. right.

thankfully your not in the majority

Also, for those who want to try and use the bible to fight against capital punishment should actually consider reading it instead of slamming your hand on it screaming that "god is against it!" There is more to it than what your liberal uhh... "pastor/preacher/etc" is telling you. he's cherry picking the feel good parts out to keep you coming to his house of blasphemy so he can rake in your tithes.

one sentence I agree with

however, myself I just think the governemnt shouldnt have the right decide who gets killed and who dosent.

[Korriken]

At 7/18/09 07:23 AM, thedo12 wrote:

At 7/18/09 02:09 AM, Korriken wrote: Thanks to advances in forensic technology, the odds of the wrong person being convicted are incredibly slim. most of these "wrongful convictions" that the libs try to throw in our faces are 10+ years ago, when forensic technology was nowhere near as good as what we have today.

incredibly slim /= none

Life isn't fair.

one innocent death is worse then a letting a thousand guilty men go free

unless some of the thousand guilty men kill someone else, then you're back to square one.

"theres lots of people , lets just start killing some !" , I mean don't you see any value in human life?

far as criminals go... no.

thankfully your not in the majority

innocent life, perhaps. criminals? no.

one sentence I agree with

however, myself I just think the governemnt shouldnt have the right decide who gets killed and who dosent.

[RubberTrucky]

The thing is, why do we lock criminals away?
Those ideas here, start from the concept that prison should be for revenge. That anyone who does something illegal should be hurt or feel the pain for their misdeed.
The other idea is so that the criminal can be taken away from society to have a time out and think about his deeds and so that we keep society safe from them. In this case, the death penalty is not the answer.

Personally I get along with option number 2. I feel that option number 1 is kind of hypocritical, because we try to make it look good with trials and we only off 'murderers'. But why should we limit this then? Why shouldn't we also off burglars and fraudists and kidnappers and vandals and... Why even give people a fair trial? If we want justice to be about revenge we would be better off to let vigilantism take its part in society, rather than the jurisdictional method.

[Korriken]

At 7/18/09 10:19 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: The thing is, why do we lock criminals away?
Those ideas here, start from the concept that prison should be for revenge. That anyone who does something illegal should be hurt or feel the pain for their misdeed.

It's not about revenge, nor is it about rehabilitation. its punishment. Much in the same way a parent punishes a child that steps out of line. If you don't provide a punishment that fits the crime, then the rule of law has no meaning. If murder had a 1 year prison sentence, I would have offed a couple of people already. I know a few people I would gladly sit in prison for a year in order to be rid of.... permanently. However, I would not be willing to give up my own life in order to end theirs, so the system works.

The other idea is so that the criminal can be taken away from society to have a time out and think about his deeds and so that we keep society safe from them. In this case, the death penalty is not the answer.

Think about his deeds? do you think someone uncaring enough to kill another would CARE? It's not like we execute someone every time someone doesn't die of natural causes. Death is reserved for the most heinous of murders, mostly the premeditated kind. the kind of murder when someone plots it out, then pulls it off. its rare to see someone executed for killing someone in a sudden fit of rage.

Personally I get along with option number 2. I feel that option number 1 is kind of hypocritical, because we try to make it look good with trials and we only off 'murderers'. But why should we limit this then? Why shouldn't we also off burglars and fraudists and kidnappers and vandals and... Why even give people a fair trial? If we want justice to be about revenge we would be better off to let vigilantism take its part in society, rather than the jurisdictional method.

less emotion, more logic.

[RubberTrucky]

At 7/18/09 10:33 AM, Korriken wrote: If murder had a 1 year prison sentence, I would have offed a couple of people already. I know a few people I would gladly sit in prison for a year in order to be rid of.... permanently. However, I would not be willing to give up my own life in order to end theirs, so the system works.

I didn't say murderers should be released in 5 years or so. Punishment should fit the crime, but should not equal it. High crimes should be responded to with a high level of prison time. At that, people should make prisons less enjoyable. Go to jail in a western nation or in a poorer region is a world of difference. We should make prisons more basic, bread and water type and have criminals sit in their untill they're found suitable for re-release.

Think about his deeds? do you think someone uncaring enough to kill another would CARE? It's not like we execute someone every time someone doesn't die of natural causes. Death is reserved for the most heinous of murders, mostly the premeditated kind. the kind of murder when someone plots it out, then pulls it off. its rare to see someone executed for killing someone in a sudden fit of rage.

I think there is more to murder then pure lust and pleasure. Even when plotted out carefully, there might be some redeeming quality. We choose to ignore this, because to us someone who murders a poor old lady must be a soulless monster. Even so, a life time in prison in a bad cell should suffice.

less emotion, more logic.

Logical, I don't see the point.
If it costs too much money, we'd not be living our luxurious lives like we live it now.
And I don't think that the purification of the human race has that much weight in a debate.

[thedo12]

At 7/18/09 10:04 AM, Korriken wrote: Life isn't fair.

but we can try our best to make it fair.

unless some of the thousand guilty men kill someone else, then you're back to square one.

at least they would have the ability to defend themselves, unlike if the government killed you.

far as criminals go... no.

so you don't think criminals can be rehabilitated?

I mean do you care about the actual crime rate at all or just punishment and revenge?

[RubberTrucky]

At 7/18/09 01:21 PM, thedo12 wrote:

unless some of the thousand guilty men kill someone else, then you're back to square one.

at least they would have the ability to defend themselves, unlike if the government killed you.

It's not that, really. Murderers shouldn't go free to kill another person. But once the murderer is caught and locked away, he should pose no longer a threat. If a person has gotten the death penalty, the kill has already happened. Or you should be able to predict murders and sentence the person who has an intent to kill someone before him actually getting into action.

Note also that pure cold logic used to dispose of people can be dangerous...

[Korriken]

At 7/18/09 10:45 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I didn't say murderers should be released in 5 years or so. Punishment should fit the crime, but should not equal it.

Why not?

High crimes should be responded to with a high level of prison time. At that, people should make prisons less enjoyable. Go to jail in a western nation or in a poorer region is a world of difference. We should make prisons more basic, bread and water type and have criminals sit in their untill they're found suitable for re-release.

cold bland food, cramped cells, hard work. These would be good qualities to see in a prison. Make prison a living hell where people long for freedom instead of making them almost as comfortable as living at home. TV? pfft. screw that, give em a radio and let em listen to the news. Maybe when prisons are known as hell on earth would people be less inclined to be put in there. as it is now, there are people out there that GLORIFY prison life.... which is kinda disturbing really.

I think there is more to murder then pure lust and pleasure. Even when plotted out carefully, there might be some redeeming quality. We choose to ignore this, because to us someone who murders a poor old lady must be a soulless monster. Even so, a life time in prison in a bad cell should suffice.

if you kill someone in cold blood, you don't deserve to live. To hell with redeeming qualities. Nothing can redeem the person who was murdered. Murderers should get a cold damp cell just big enough for them to lay down, and a noose hanging from the ceiling and a foot stool. It makes me sick to know that some prisoners live a better life than some law abiding citizens the prisons have gotten so nice. Prisons should be abandoned for hard labor camps. I don't care if the prisoners have to bust up rocks into gravel. Prison should not be a place to kick back, Personally, I think the Louisiana State Pen, Angola would be a perfect example on how to deal with inmates. Work the hell out of them all day and make them tired. Also, I see no issue on rehabilitating them while they are in prison, but prison is not meant to be a rehab facility alone.

less emotion, more logic.

Logical, I don't see the point.

I wonder why...

And I don't think that the purification of the human race has that much weight in a debate.

who said anything about purification of the human race?

[Korriken]

At 7/18/09 01:21 PM, thedo12 wrote:

At 7/18/09 10:04 AM, Korriken wrote: Life isn't fair.

but we can try our best to make it fair.

unless some of the thousand guilty men kill someone else, then you're back to square one.

at least they would have the ability to defend themselves, unlike if the government killed you.

Murderers don't exactly show up at your doorstep at dawn and tell you to come out with your own weapon for a fight to the death. Murderers usually catch their victims by surprise, leaving little if any chance to defend yourself.

far as criminals go... no.

so you don't think criminals can be rehabilitated?

a petty thief? probably. a killer? no. a rapist? probably not.

I mean do you care about the actual crime rate at all or just punishment and revenge?

Who said anything about revenge? you assume punishment and revenge are the same thing. the difference is, punishment is even handed and prescribed before the crime is committed. Revenge is done through anger at the whim of someone else.

if you kill someone and the punishment is death, then you die as your punishment. it is not revenge. However, if the punishment is a slap on the wrist and you are killed by an angry mob, that is revenge. This is why I always say, do not bring emotionalism into a debate, only logic and facts. Emotions cloud peoples' judgment.

But i do wonder though, if the death penalty ever did indeed end up banned on a global scale and its decided that government has no right to kill people, then the next biggest punishment would be life in prison without parole. How long would it be before people begin to think that life in prison with no chance of ever being released is too cruel of a punishment?

[All-American-Badass]

At 7/18/09 03:21 PM, Korriken wrote: How long would it be before people begin to think that life in prison with no chance of ever being released is too cruel of a punishment?

I hope that never happens. Anything less than life in prison for murderers would be an outrage.

[MultiCanimefan]

Instead of just putting people in prison, we should attack the root of what causes the crime in the first place. If poverty were to be reduced, the root of most crime, we wouldn't have such a problem.

If we transform our current prisons from paradises to living hells, then they should be for rapists, murderers, and other people of the dangerous variety, not for petty thieves and other annoying little grievances.

[RubberTrucky]

At 7/18/09 03:04 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/18/09 10:45 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I didn't say murderers should be released in 5 years or so. Punishment should fit the crime, but should not equal it.

Why not?

It's the same idea as I have about killing anything. When I can see alternatives, why taking someone' life?

I think there is more to murder then pure lust and pleasure. Even when plotted out carefully, there might be some redeeming quality. We choose to ignore this, because to us someone who murders a poor old lady must be a soulless monster. Even so, a life time in prison in a bad cell should suffice.

if you kill someone in cold blood, you don't deserve to live. To hell with redeeming qualities. Nothing can redeem the person who was murdered. Murderers should get a cold damp cell just big enough for them to lay down, and a noose hanging from the ceiling and a foot stool. It makes me sick to know that some prisoners live a better life than some law abiding citizens the prisons have gotten so nice. Also, I see no issue on rehabilitating them while they are in prison, but prison is not meant to be a rehab facility alone.

(cut out a bit) this is not a logical argument, but an emotional one. 'Killers are soulless monsters and deserve to suffer for what they have done.'

Logical, I don't see the point.

I wonder why...

As I said, killing something is an emergency resort to me. Like wild animals, if you can get rid of them without shooting them, you should take that option.

And I don't think that the purification of the human race has that much weight in a debate.

who said anything about purification of the human race?

I anticipated it.