At 1/25/17 12:47 PM, Hacklyn wrote:
By that reasoning everyone can now commit one murder with impunity.
Eh, maybe? I don't think people would go out and kill just because they could, and if they did, that would probably be an indicator that there are other non-murder related crimes you could expect from someone with such an opportunistic streak. On those grounds, they would most likely face some kind of consequences.
- - Can they be productive toward others? If yes, remove something they would need to commit murder in the expected method (limbs? appendages?), or alter aggressive behavior via castration.
Fair enough. There are still methods of behavior modification though.
- - If they aren't expected to help others, imprison them in a natural environment (mountain range?) where they have a better chance of fulfillment than in solitary confinement.
This would be different from vacation. If someone can't be reformed, their detainment would be indefinite, but the design of such a sentence would be to give them the best possible quality of life without giving them the opportunity to interfere with others. If this is too cushy I still consider execution a viable alternative.
Sure, but that would remove the point of the entire justice system. A pot can't call the kettle black. There's no point if justice enforces standards it doesn't intend to keep.
You're missing the point. I don't want to punish murderers because murder is wrong, because I don't think right and wrong are relevant. Instead, I think of it from the perspective that people don't want murder, so we should stop murder. If someone is too dangerous to be kept alive, they shouldn't be. That's not a punishment; it's a proactive solution.
At 1/25/17 02:25 PM, orangebomb wrote:
Let's be honest here, people who commit and are found guilty of crimes do deserve what they get in terms of punishment, and not only is that fair, but far better than it was in the past, let alone the alternatives. I take it that you don't like our criminal justice system because of individual rights getting in the way, but when you consider that crinimals never really take that into account, in even in select cases, make a mockery of it all, your argument comes off as flat.
You can't empirically argue that anyone "deserves" anything, because you have to implement your idea of justice through a (subjective) moral code. What I dislike about the justice system is that it's more focused on the past than the future, which means that people care more about following rules than creating a better society (again, "better" is subjective, but I'm taking a utilitarian approach here.)
The 8th amendment isn't going to allow that. Even at the most blurriest, no sanctioned judge is going to advocate cutting off limbs or sexual organs as punishment. Gangs on the other hand...
Prevention =/= punishment
Hahahaha, no. The last thing you want to do is to have a criminal murder/rape/maim again because putting them in a natural environment where they would easily escape.
It doesn't have to have poor security. Think San Diego zoo.
- - If they have no ability to help others be productive toward themselves, execute them. Really, why keep them alive? Moreover, the blood, organs, plasma, and bone marrow can help others.
Well, we already do just that.
Not really. Most of the time we waste the potential resources of executed prisoners.
In all seriousness, people seem to be either complete bleeding hearts for criminals who commit heinous crimes, are naive and childish, or are simply using insane troll logic as a way to paint our criminal system in a bad light, not realizing that there are far more egregious justice systems out there and we don't go after those.
I'm not even directing my criticisms at any specific justice system, I'm simply suggesting another approach. Instead of asking who's responsible for a crime and what they deserve, the question is what's best for society as a whole. That means the criminal's well-being is included but in practice overshadowed by the well-being of everyone else.