Originally posted by Blick Winkel
To what extent could forced labour cover the costs of imprisonment and to what capacity can it be used to the benefit of society?
Being away from society is the only real benefit to society. I'm guessing forced labor teaches prisoners the rigors of an honest day's work. Then again, what if most of them already know this? Forced labor isn't a subject I've really thought about before.
I'm guessing forced labor teaches prisoners the rigors of an honest day's work.
I was thinking more the product of their labour actually lol but that also works.
The way I see it is that if the death penalty cannot be considered to be of value as a form of deterrence to the crimes to which it relates, the question to consider is what remains the most economically beneficial method of removing its beneficiaries from society (I personally do believe that "bad" people deserved to be punished, though I recognise that may be a belief driven more by emotion than logic; you could also access exactly how big a punishment death (and the manner with which it is received with the death penalty) actually is).
If forced labour enables prisoners to cover the costs of their imprisonment (approximately the minimum requirements for their survival), than imprisonment may be the more economical option; incentive programs can be in place in the event that a prisoner refuses to cooperate; if in the face of that they still refuse to be of use then perhaps the death penalty is the more cost efficient option.
I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered however but that would be my immediate stance on the matter.
Originally posted by Blick Winkel
The way I see it is that if the death penalty cannot be considered to be of value as a form of deterrence to the crimes to which it relates, the question to consider is what remains the most economically beneficial method of removing its beneficiaries from society (I personally do believe that "bad" people deserved to be punished, though I recognise that may be a belief driven more by emotion than logic; you could also access exactly how big a punishment death (and the manner with which it is received with the death penalty) actually is).
If forced labour enables prisoners to cover the costs of their imprisonment (approximately the minimum requirements for their survival), than imprisonment may be the more economical option; incentive programs can be in place in the event that a prisoner refuses to cooperate; if in the face of that they still refuse to be of use then perhaps the death penalty is the more cost efficient option.
Prison as it is now under certain conditions, perhaps. A lifetime of labour under living conditions that solely meet the minimum requirements of survival (or something marginally better perhaps per the requirements of the incentive programs) I'm not so sure, and I and I'm sure many others would probably find a swift release from life more favourable than a lifetime with practically zero quality of living.
Whether somebody deserves to die or be punished for doing bad things is entirely subjective and cannot be argued from a logical basis (though I do personally hold the same belief as you on the matter); I'm not entirely sure you can say that seeing punishment on somebody that has done you wrong does much to negate the effects of the initial wrongdoing in the first place, and a lot of psychologists on the matter would conclude that the pain remains the same regardless - there's also the fact to consider that not everyone would neccessarily see death as a greater punishment on an individual than a harsh existence.
Regardless of those more subjective questions, I feel that the objective contribution it may indeed have on GDP to be the real determining factor regarding whether it should be implemented.
Completely deviating from what you two have been discussing, here is something I wrote for one of my classes last year on prison reform.
“We live in a country that is addicted to incarceration as a tool for social control. As it stands now justice systems are extremely expensive, do not rehabilitate but in fact make the people that experience them worse and have no evidence based correlatives to reducing crime. Yet with that track record they continue to thrive, prosper and are seen as an appropriate response...”
- James Bell
Today's prisons have become nothing more than congested warehouses of criminals, facilities of disillusionment, and hotbeds of gang violence. The squalid existing conditions within prisons, and the resulting impact upon prisoners, have created a highly ineffective penal system. Prison reform, the attempt to produce a more effectual penal system, intends to amend these current conditions and establish an environment suitable in rectifying inmates. Punitive action stands as the obvious fundamental characteristic of penology- one must pay the price for committing crime and violating the laws of the state. However, deterrence theory, the penological ideology that prisons should act as places that 'convince' inmates to never engage in any future criminal behavior, spectacularly fails in actually rehabilitating prisoners. Rather, the subjection of inmates to harsh punishments designated to 'deter' them from later illegal activities only creates an atmosphere of fear and inhumanity; simply put, deterrence theory forms a moral quandary in which the treatments placed upon prisoners hypocritically transgress the ethical standard of government laws. Though the goals of the United States and other nations' criminal justice systems include the melioration of inmates, the unfortunate reality remains that most correctional facilities practice an ineffective form of rehabilitation, or simply resort to deterrence. The proof behind the shortcomings of these criminal justice systems are the high rates of recidivism, or the tendency of offenders to relapse into criminal behavior, and thereby returning to prison . The psychopathy to commit further law-breaking, driven by the poor handling of prisoners, not only demands a basic need of rehabilitation, but also calls for a different method of reformation that could stem recidivism. Yet, this new method need not be groundbreaking, but can be a practice familiar to people all over the world: yoga. Yogic practices that aim to spiritually advance individuals would produce a mental upliftment for prisoners that would reduce the levels of stress and tension, improve mental and physical resolve, and establish a rational acuteness and moral awareness that would assist prisoners in avoiding future criminal behavior and in reintegrating themselves back into society...................
...................... As former parole officer Rose Parks stated, “Prisons are highly stressful environments and yoga may offer prisoners a much needed physical and mental release of the tension of prison life, paradoxically turning prison cells into places of retreat, where prisoners can develop self-discipline and concentration skills. If prisoners are better equipped to deal with their emotions, particularly fear and anger, then, I believe, they are less likely to harm themselves or others. This can only be of long-term benefit to society.”
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So you believe it should either serve as a deterrent or in its current form, die? Do you not believe that certain individuals deserve to die? I'm a strong proponent of a murderer not insulting society by having the ability to wake up every day.
The death penalty removes the entire genetic and economic contribution of that individual. I'd be much more supportive of Siberian work camps than of a rapid killing machine. Hell, we've got dozens of drugs in the pipeline that can't get approved...
[*]Killing the convicted is only sometimes beneficial to their victims' emotional recovery.
People may say that they want their [parents' murderer, dog's abuser, home's thief] to be executed, but people are terrible at deciding what is good for them. There was a NEWSWEEK story about the guy from OK who survived the senseless murder of his parents and then later forgave the accomplice. Anecdotal I know, but this illustrates the point that knee-jerk vengeance isn't always the best option for families of victims.
[*]Killing someone offers little to no margin of error.
I am a big fan of being alive, and would very much like to not be executed for a crime I did not commit. The death-row inmate from TX who was all but proven innocent by DNA evidence and then executed anyway shows that the system is not perfect. Sticking with TX, lets not forget how many mentally retarded people have been executed; that seems to me an unforgivable use of government power.[/list]
Fixed.. As for abortion, I'm pro choice, anti abortion, if that makes any sense.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So you believe it should either serve as a deterrent or in its current form, die?
If political mechanisms (and I’m speaking across the board: legal, judicial, social, etc.) that directly deal with and greatly impact the day-to-day lives of others do not perform their functions adequately, then they need to be subject to reform or eliminated entirely. Though I grant you that finances play a tremendous role in program reform, the sad reality is that much of it is in deadlock because of incessant partisan bitching on both ends of the spectrum. (Hence my constant irritation with the political climate; it used to be fascinating to me, but seeing highly educated and intelligent people who run our country on our behalf act like some of the most myopic and foolish members of this forum has long-since killed my interest in most of the field.)
Now the problem with capital punishment is that it not only deals with the lives of others, it very obviously decides the fate of others directly. That’s not something I’m interested in half-assing.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Do you not believe that certain individuals deserve to die? I'm a strong proponent of a murderer not insulting society by having the ability to wake up every day.
Honestly, it depends on the nature of the crime. But that’s just the issue: People are uniquely prone to passions and prejudices and neither are things that have any place in an execution. Thinking about it as objectively as possible, I see very few crimes as deserving of execution. The two I can almost immediately agree with are treason and crimes against humanity. Murder, rape, and the like are all disgusting, despicable, heinous acts and I’m sure that I could be persuaded during the events of one such case to fry the criminal. But that’s an issue of vengeance, not justice.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Fixed.. As for abortion, I'm pro choice, anti abortion, if that makes any sense.
Definitely. I’m pro-choice, but to say that the idea of an abortion makes me uncomfortable is an understatement.
I'll get to the rest of yours and RH's arguments later but just wanted to address this now.
But that’s an issue of vengeance, not justice.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Whoa, someone obviously needs to check the status of his sarcasm detector.Did you know that a good portion of online communication is lost due to lack of visible clues such as body language, accent, and barely contained laughter?
I'm going to assume that this was a hypoglycemic moment of unusual crabbiness and/or a complete absence of mutual understanding.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Don't think I forgot about that TOR fiasco last week. uhuh
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Don't think I forgot about that TOR fiasco last week. uhuh
Originally posted by Nephthys
So Slash, Gideon and Zam, should I expect responses from each of you or are we just going to agree to disagree on this one?
U talking about the drain thing? So there still hasn't been anything decided on that yet?
[Ignore this if you're talking about something completely different 😂]
Originally posted by Stealth MooseThrenold sounds like Teryn Logain.
TOR is better than anything evah, suck it.