Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's original purpose is was to rehabilitate (that's why its called "corrections"😉, but we now know it doesn't work. So today, prison still exists due to tradition, monetary reasons, lack of willingness to change, and the philosophy of "Out of sight, out of mind".
Originally posted by King Kandy
We know this doesn't work how? It works fine in other countries so I feel it's more likely the method of rehabilitation we use, than some kind of failure of the very idea of rehabilitation.
High recidivism, repeat offenders, the lengthy wrap-sheets of most felons etc. All these indicate that it doesn't work. Just ask any CJ professor, and they'll tell you that its a failed experiment.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
High recidivism, repeat offenders, the lengthy wrap-sheets of most felons etc. All these indicate that it doesn't work. Just ask any CJ professor, and they'll tell you that its a failed experiment.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, from an economic perspective it definitely does make sense compared to life sentences. Personally, I feel in the US we hand out life long sentences too freely as well. In Norway, even murder won't get you life.
What are you, some faggy liberal? Most murders don't net you life in the US.
Originally posted by Robtard
What are you, some faggy liberal? Most murders don't net you life in the US.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Derp derp, in Norway NO murders net you life... So no, what I said was correct.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not really. Killing someone because they murdered some old lady to get to the $2.84 in her pursue is not the same as the act of the murderer.Sure both net you a dead body, but intent and reasons matter.
I would consider that an arbitrary distrinction
and it really doesn't address why some people are given the power to take the lives of others, regardless of the reason.
It's just that keeping killers in prison costs ALOT of money.
First you have the rooms, power, food. ect shouldn't be a problem.
But then you have Mental care. Nurses. Two security for every guy while in contact with.
These guys tend to also have solitary cells. Alot of money gets invested into these people and there are heaps of em.
I'm undecided on the return of a death penalty soley because the Law can be taken advantage of too easily.
Originally posted by Robtard
Sure both net you a dead body, but intent and reasons matter.
But what are the intentions in killing a murderer and more importantly, above anything else, how and what does it change? Its like a sunk cost in Economics. The deed is done and nothing can change it. Ideally the goal would be to take action to ensure it doesn't happen again. If killing people was a true deterrent against violent crime, I think it would have greater effect, especially since most murders are spur of the moment actions.
Good intentions are useless if they don't produce a good consequences so even though the justice system may have good intentions, does it make good on them?
Originally posted by inimalist
I would consider that an arbitrary distrinctionand it really doesn't address why some people are given the power to take the lives of others, regardless of the reason.
No more arbitary than the varying degrees a person can be charged with murder, eg intent and reason can lower a murder charge to manslaughter, yet a person died either way.
Some people? It would be society. Just as, why can a society make and impose laws, but you and I individually can't?
It comes down to what a person sees as just punishment, I guess. The death of some murderers to me isn't something I'm bothered by; reason why I don't hang outside San Quentin with protest signs when a convict is scheduled to be gased.
Originally posted by Lucius
But what are the intentions in killing a murderer and more importantly, above anything else, how and what does it change? Its like a sunk cost in Economics. The deed is done and nothing can change it. Ideally the goal would be to take action to ensure it doesn't happen again. If killing people was a true deterrent against violent crime, I think it would have greater effect, especially since most murders are spur of the moment actions.Good intentions are useless if they don't produce a good consequences so even though the justice system may have good intentions, does it make good on them?
That can be said about most punishments then, so why bother with it at all. Locking someone away for a certain amount of time can also be argued isn't a very good deterrent either, considering the amount of repeat offenders who go in, out and back in jail time and again.
Don't follow you there.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But all of those statistics you bring up are from the US. Like I said in some countries, the recidivism is barely anything. In Norway the max time for any offense is 21 years and they get by completely fine and have a lower recidivism rate by far than the US.
Well, that's where the crime that this thread's about took place. And so what about Norway? I already knew that; Japan and the Scandanavian countries have the lowest crime rates in the world (Fun fact: White Nationalists cite their homogeneity as the reason why), but what about it? Unless you think the US can learn a lesson or two. But how would you suggest that America go about adopting and implementing Norway's secret of curing badguys who don't recidivate?
Originally posted by RobtardIt is also cheaper, (but neither are cheap).
Except of course it will accomplish the same thing as keeping them in for life. A dead criminal can't commit more crimes, same as a lifer. Though a lifer can (and do) commit more crimes while in jail.So logically, the death penalty makes more sense than giving someone life in prison.
I think people are missing something important. Prisoners are very expensive to keep up, and they provide nothing behind bars to the economy. I don't necessarily advocate the death penalty, but I'm not sure I completely reject it either. It is a bigger question than "this man is sick".
Also people don't generally get executed the next day. They stay on death row for like, 20 years.
Originally posted by Robtard
Except I was responding to your comments on life sentences in the US. The **** cares about Norway.
I can tell you that there are lots of IT jobs in Norway, they are better in almost every single category compared to the US, and everyone is much happier there.
Norway is definitely one of the places I will be looking for a job in, in about 5 years (finish the Ph.D. and complete my internship/s.) Norway is an awesome place: the bane of just about every conservatards arguments.
This particular case, for me, warrants the death penalty. Robtard, remember our convesation over 2 years ago about "100%" surety on a convincion? This is one of those. Have the trial just to preserve his constitutional rights, of course, but quickly execute him when the jury decides he's guilty...like, one day after the verdict is handed out. (Not Cook, but the Master fellow.)
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, that's where the crime that this thread's about took place. And so what about Norway? I already knew that; Japan and the Scandanavian countries have the lowest crime rates in the world (Fun fact: White Nationalists cite their homogeneity as the reason why), but what about it? Unless you think the US can learn a lesson or two. But how would you suggest that America go about adopting and implementing Norway's secret of curing badguys who don't recidivate?
Originally posted by Robtard
Some people. Personally, he should be tortured in kind, I'm certain there's some sick **** out there would would love to torture him as he did that girl, probably for free too.What will this accomplish you ask? It will teach the prick a lesson that torturing others doesn't feel good and that he shouldn't ever do it again; isn't that the point of the penal system?
The penal system is supposed to bring justice, not revenge or thuggish conduct - that's what mobsters do.
It was also supposed to work for the society, not for individual's feelings of retribution and revenge. The raise of victimhood has significantly shifted the way justice is perceived and in some cases, conducted.