Alternative Punishments

[Commander-K25]

Let's take a break from the Iraq issues for a moment.

This post is on alternatives to the death penalty and other alternative punishments in general. I happen to be opposed to the death penalty. In lieu of it, capital crimes should be punished by lifetime solitary confinement w/o parole.

For more minor crimes, (pick pocketing, excessive traffic violations, petty theft & shoplifting, etc.), I propose that the stocks or pillory be reinstituted, possibly in conjunction with a fine or jail time. This would save space in crowded jails.

[implodinggoat]

The death penalty should be kept, but it should be taken back to hanging. Its efficient rather humane, and cheap.

It should be standard for any multiple or particularly maliscious murderer.

At 4/8/03 09:51 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Let's take a break from the Iraq issues for a moment.

This post is on alternatives to the death penalty and other alternative punishments in general. I happen to be opposed to the death penalty. In lieu of it, capital crimes should be punished by lifetime solitary confinement w/o parole.

For more minor crimes, (pick pocketing, excessive traffic violations, petty theft & shoplifting, etc.), I propose that the stocks or pillory be reinstituted, possibly in conjunction with a fine or jail time. This would save space in crowded jails.

Minor offenses should be punished with a hefty fine and a probationary period.
If the probation is violated, then you go to jail.
Major offenses (Rape, Murder, Child Mollestation, ect.) should lead to the death penatly. And I don't mean some humane "Lethal Injection" either. I mean take the criminal outside and shoot them.
This "humane" shit we have been going through the past 50 years is a bunch of bullshit.

[PreacherJ]

Hangin' ain't such a bad ideer, I reckon. Beats the wicked amounts of money we throw away on electric bills or all the drugs pumped into criminals during lethal injection.

Another thing-
Why the hell do we give criminals a physical before we kill them? And use sterilized needles?

Anywho...
Just remember a quote from a song from Ren & Stimpy:
Ohhhh.... The Lord loves a hangin', and so do we, by heck! So grab a rope and tie a knot and decorate your neck!

[TheShrike]

At 4/8/03 10:10 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Another thing-
Why the hell do we give criminals a physical before we kill them? And use sterilized needles?

It would be 'inhumane' to do so.
Not that most people who usually get the death penalty ever show compassion or pity to their victims.

I support the death penalty.
It costs $$$$$$$ to keep 'em locked up.
And when they don't live a life that is better than some free people get, they often get much worse. lack of medical attention, etc.
It costs roughly $40 a day to house an adult male convict.
Adult females cost roughly $70 a day.

The only alternative to the death penalty I think would be something like 'Escape from New York'

As for minor offenses, I think people should be fined, then jailed if they do not pay.
Marijuana posession carries a rather hefty penalty, considering that it is much more benign drug than alcohol.

Sometimes people who are sentenced to life get off the hook because the jails keep filling up with drug offenders. Rapists and murderers go free to free up space for the crack dealers.

I'm not defending hard drugs... But I'd rather have the guy who sells dope for some spare cash loose than the guy who rapes little girls.

Kill the guys who do the heinous, and lighten up on the smaller offenses.

[PreacherJ]

Word.

[Commander-K25]

At 4/8/03 10:27 PM, TheShrike wrote: It costs roughly $40 a day to house an adult male convict.
Adult females cost roughly $70 a day.

My idea is basically bread, water and a concrete room. How much could that cost?

The only alternative to the death penalty I think would be something like 'Escape from New York'

That would be a nice set-up. Let 'em loose on some cordoned-off island.

At 4/8/03 11:00 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 4/8/03 10:27 PM, TheShrike wrote: It costs roughly $40 a day to house an adult male convict.
Adult females cost roughly $70 a day.

My idea is basically bread, water and a concrete room. How much could that cost?

Don't even lock them up.
If they are sentenced to death, Let them have 2 hours on the phone, take them outisde, and then shoot them.
Bullets cost next to nothing and the phone call is cheap.
Even from a "humane" standpoint, This is a good option.
It dosen't hurt to get shot in the head from 10 paces and you die instantly.

The only alternative to the death penalty I think would be something like 'Escape from New York'

That would be a nice set-up. Let 'em loose on some cordoned-off island.

It might work. The French own a bunch of islands in the South Pacific that have no population and are surrounded by reefs that make them hard to get to (Or get away from)
While there, have the criminals do something useful, like make some sort of good.
It could work, but the cost would be huge to get it set up and maintain it.

[StarCleaver]

i think that the death penalty is a bad thing because you can't say that killing if bad and then kill someone. i think it should only be used for someone who can't be controlled by any other means. i also think that life withougt parole is a good alternative. because it costs more put someone to death as it does to keep them for life w/o parole. that is due to the hugh court costs and things like that.

i think for smaller offenses they should reinstitute the ways of the ancient civilizations. if you steal, they cut off your hand. that will make you think twice before doin it.

[PreacherJ]

You do know that killing people is cheaper than supporting them, right?

[NJDeadzone]

stocks are cruel and unusual punishment...it said so on my constitution placemat

[Commander-K25]

At 4/8/03 11:29 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: stocks are cruel and unusual punishment...it said so on my constitution placemat

Uh....yeah.

BTW, nice Crew Logo placement in your sig ;-)

[NJDeadzone]

lol np, and the placemat bit is all true lol when i was young i had a constitution placemat and it gave the bill of rights and showed some dude in a stock and said No Cruel or Unusual Punishment That was a neat placemat.

[implodinggoat]

What if we used prisoners for entertainment? It worked for the Romans. You know make them fight to the death and such with sponsorship like the Mastercard half time execution. Reality TV is really big now a days I think it could pay for the whole prison system if properly implemented and exploited for its advertising possibilities.

[Jimsween]

At 4/8/03 11:00 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

My idea is basically bread, water and a concrete room. How much could that cost?

An unusually large sum of money, but we cant do that because we eprive them of neccesary vitamins and that is cruel and unusual.

That would be a nice set-up. Let 'em loose on some cordoned-off island.

Send them to... MONSTER ISLAND

[NJDeadzone]

the current system of underground prisons where the lights are always on and the prisoners never see daylight for years on end is very effective. Once a prisoner loses sense of time, he is very confused and weakened by it.

[implodinggoat]

At 4/8/03 11:52 PM, jimsween wrote: Send them to... MONSTER ISLAND

And film it right? It would be a shame to let such entertainment go to waste.

[TheShrike]

At 4/8/03 11:43 PM, implodinggoat wrote: [...feed 'em to the lions...]

No.. that's a little far.</serious>

Besides, I think they should be fed to the Dolphins. Or the Raiders. Or give 'em to the Cowboys. They'll eat anything.

[bumcheekcity]

nope. i like the death penalty, but only for the most severe crimes. extreme peadophilia, extreme drug traffiking and genocide.

it should be quick and they shouldnt fdart arouns for months on death row.

[fourdaddy]

At 4/8/03 11:25 PM, PreacherJ wrote: You do know that killing people is cheaper than supporting them, right?

actually, this is incorrect. the current [extremely flawed] system makes it possible for those sentenced to death to make numerous appeals. who pays for those lawyers, judges, and court time? certainly not the condemned.

the ideal situation would be one trip to the appelette courts, and then its lights out. this would not only reduce costs, but time. those schooled in criminal justice (not my major, but ive had classes) will tell you that cesar lombroso had a theory on punishment: it must be certain, severe, and SWIFT. they call him the father of criminology, so i think he *might* know what hes talking about.

At 4/9/03 06:23 PM, fourdaddy wrote: the ideal situation would be one trip to the appelette courts, and then its lights out. this would not only reduce costs, but time. those schooled in criminal justice (not my major, but ive had classes) will tell you that cesar lombroso had a theory on punishment: it must be certain, severe, and SWIFT. they call him the father of criminology, so i think he *might* know what hes talking about.

DNA testing should be done before the case goes to court.
That way, they are either guilty or not. There is no maybe.

[fourdaddy]

At 4/9/03 06:34 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: DNA testing should be done before the case goes to court.
That way, they are either guilty or not. There is no maybe.

are you suggesting that there be no appeals at all?

[Anarchy-Balsac]

in some states they do things such as forcing burglers to open their doors so people can loot and the like. though i believe in the death penalty in some cases, in some cases i think only torture would be enough(i.e. multiple murders), and in some cases such as killing someone for abusing you it's way too cruel. that's my 2 cents

[StarCleaver]

At 4/9/03 06:34 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: DNA testing should be done before the case goes to court.
That way, they are either guilty or not. There is no maybe.

yes but the problem with that is that DNA testing is not always 100% accurate. there are screw ups in everything that goes on. human error is a big issue in delicate matters such as the death penalty. if some guy sneezes on the DNA sample, its flawed.

kinda off topic of DNA but what i hate to see are people that sue other people for insane amounts of money. if i went into McDonald's and i slipped on the wet floor that had no wet floor sign on it and hit my head, i could sue for millions. its ridiculous. i wish people would think with their common sense and not with their wallets.

all that leads up to the fact that lawyers are what ruins everything in the judicial system. all of these people get off for murder and rape because they have a good lawyer. i think that they should make it where the lawyer should get the same punishment as the defendent. that way lawyers would only take up cases that were legitiamte. but you wouldn't have to have the death penalty. i think they should just flogg people. flogg the guilty and flogg the lawyer and be done with it. that's the problem. when you are too humane, the punishments don't seem like punishments. some people that go to jail at get food and a clean bed which might be more then they had outside of jail. i think that we should leave the humane ways behind and go back to the old days of the guillotine in the town square and the stocks right beside them.

[RoboTripper]

We are humane to prisoners, even those on Death Row, because we are a civilized country.

Being such, we realize that:

1) Many criminals are strongly influenced by their upbringing and by society. This is not to say that they shouldn't be held accountable - that is what jail and Death Row are for. But when there is a chance of rehabilitation, it should be offered. Putting criminals in stocks or in a tiny cement room for a few years will not help them. Punish them by putting them in prison, but why not try to turn out a contributing member of society at the same time? There is a very high recidivism (sic?) rate, but there are also those who use jail for rehabilitation -gaining an education, finding Jesus, whatever floats their boat.

2) Some people in jail and on Death Row are innocent. Prisoners should be afforded fair and extensive processing in the courts and humane treatment because of this. Is it worse to punish the innocent or not punish the guilty?

[NJDeadzone]

At 4/9/03 10:06 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote: Is it worse to punish the innocent or not punish the guilty?

it's worse to punish the obviously guilty after countless appeals that take money away from the state and municipal governments, which is taken away from youth social services which creates the crime cycle again.

[House-Of-Leaves]

Oh, YAY! Something other than the war to talk about!

I'm...iffy about the death penalty, and my mind changes when something horrible happens, and I get biased. For the most part, this is where I stand:

It's actually a fact that life imprisonment is CHEAPER than execution. Here is a direct copy/paste:

· A New York study revealed it cost $2.8 million to try an indigent capital defendant through the first stage of appeals – more than twice the cost of life imprisonment. The study concluded that it would cost about $850,000 to keep an inmate in prison for 40 years.

-end paste-

Here's the link:

http://ojp.la-archdiocese.org/mythfact.htm

Some of that is ethics-based, but the important part is the money part. SO many people are convinced that if you kill em...it's cheaper. But they don't realize that it's the appeals process and everything else that keeps things expensive.

So...my stand:

- No death penalty. (To be honest, I think it'd be better to make the worst murderers live the rest of their lives being guilty and alone and miserable. Assholes.)

- De-criminalize certain victimless crimes, and most drug related crimes. (In other words, use fines and records rather than using jail space.)

- Legalize, regulate, and tax (where reasonable) certain things (like marijuana and prostitution).

That's all. Or...well. What I can give in a nutshell.

[House-Of-Leaves]

OH!

Something else I wanted to add.

There's certain crimes that are committed by people who don't necessarily mean to commit them, but are horribly negligent anyway. For instance...drunk driving.

I've had more than a few friends killed by drunk drivers. It's a horrible, horrible offense, but it's usually a case where the driver didn't -mean- for it to happen. They were just truly stupid.

The most suitable punishment I've ever heard of for something like this was simple, but harsh.

A young man killed a girl while driving drunk. Hit her with his car. While he wasn't sent to jail, he got plenty of fines, and a settlement to pay the family of the girl.

The family themselves came up with this.

Every year, on the date she died, he was to write out a personal check for $1.00. He then had to mail that check to the family of the girl he killed. He felt horrible about doing it in the first place...and her family made sure it was a lesson he could NEVER forget. If he missed one payment, he was to go to jail. I would bet he's never driven drunk again.

Punishments like that, I think, are appropriate. Obviously, it wouldn't work for everyone. But I still think it's a clever punishment.

[Freakapotimus]

I'm very mixed on the issue, because I know that there is always the one guy who's on death row and truly innocent. Sometimes the appeals cases catch it... I saw something on CourtTV the other night about a case where a woman allegedly killed her boyfriend by adding LSD to his jello. I'll look up some info later.

In college, I was taking a class where we debated various issues, one was the death penalty. We watched "Dead Man Walking" and almost the entire class was anti-death penalty when the film was over. I was the only pro (I had been anti before watching). I don't think he would have repented and sincerely felt bad for what he did unless he was facing death.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/10/03 11:13 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: I'm very mixed on the issue, because I know that there is always the one guy who's on death row and truly innocent. Sometimes the appeals cases catch it... I saw something on CourtTV the other night about a case where a woman allegedly killed her boyfriend by adding LSD to his jello. I'll look up some info later.

thats quite a cool and different methos of killing people. lol. thats the main bad thing. you can release an innocent man from prison, but not bring him back to life.

In college, I was taking a class where we debated various issues, one was the death penalty. We watched "Dead Man Walking" and almost the entire class was anti-death penalty when the film was over. I was the only pro (I had been anti before watching). I don't think he would have repented and sincerely felt bad for what he did unless he was facing death.

i hate that film.