The fundamental flaw with your logic, psmith, is that you think that "justice" is important. That's barbaric thinking. You think we should bust out the old "eye for an eye" Code of Hammurabi. That's barbaric. That's violent ancient human bullshit.
Hold on. You're pointing out that I have a fundamental flaw in my argument and your response is "that's barbaric"? That's not an argument, that's you making an opinion and passing it off as fact. If I repeat what you said with "you think rehabilitation is more important than justice", and proceed to provide zero reasons as to how or why, we're back to square one. Furthermore, repeatedly saying "this is barbaric" without explaining just how it's barbaric doesn't make it more valid. I also don't know why you mentioned "eye for an eye" or Hammurabi or anything else. So lets agree that your first paragraph lacks any kind of evidence or argument, and is mostly littered with an opinion, tautology, and superfluous text. Moving on
When people like you stop viewing incarceration as a place to punish people but, instead, a place to rehabilitate people, then we can start to make meaningful changes to combating crime. I noticed you didn't address recidivism, at all: the fundamental problem in the US Criminal System. It's because we are focused on "punishment" and not rehabilitation.
And when people like you start understanding that incarceration IS a punishment for crimes people have committed (illegal activities), then we can have a meaningful discussion. My thinking isn't a fundamental problem with the criminal justice system because your point ignores the fact that we need to stop crime before it starts. How exactly are we going to combat crime by rehabilitating criminals? Shouldn't we start trying to combat crime before it starts? And you keep mentioning rehabilitation. Rehab is reserved for people who have a chance to make a positive contribution to society once they get out. How does this effect life without parole? Or are you subtly advocating getting rid of that as well? I always have a problem when someone who pretends to be enlightened equates change with progress and that's what you seem to be doing. You're looking to just change something and not addressing the proper issues.
The reason you separate a criminal from the public is because the person represents a danger to the public. If a person commits a victim-less crime, they should never ever be incarcerated. Ever. The point of criminal rehabilitation is to reintegrate that human back into society and make them a positive contributor to society (instead of a drain).
That is A reason, as in one of many reasons. Once again, your argument is littered with tautologies. And I have no idea why you mentioned the second part. We didn't discuss non violent crime but it appears you want zero incarceration for nonviolent crime. How about DUIs or DWIs? Your change is less change and more insanity.
And how Christian is it to think, "String him up and murder the **** out of him!!! Raawwr!"? Doesn't that strike you as very anti-Christlike? For a "Christian Nation", we are awfully barbaric and unforgiving.
More unintelligible chatter and another tautology. Actually I take that back. This is a meaningless, emotional post. Now you're somehow comparing 21st century capital punishment with a lengthy appeals process to "string him up, RAWR"! No, that doesn't fly. Also, why are you bringing religion up? I haven't.
Also, notice I specifically said unrepentant criminals? Because, yeah, if they are not going to reintegrate and we have irrefutable evidence that they committed the crime, that's when the "death penalty" should be used (for things like mass murderers and serial rapists).
This is very ambiguous. How are you going to judge the repentant ones from the unrepentant? Do you have some kind of honor system? And how did we go from "maybe not death penalty" to "reintegrate"? That's going from one extreme to the other. The logical medium would be "life without parole". You're all over the place, dude.
Also, why can not the idea of "justice" also be that the criminal has the serve the community in incarceration? Why does your idea of justice have to be punishment in an inhumane prison?
Inhumane prison? That's tautology #3. What exactly is inhumane here? Going to prison? Prison conditions? The idea that a criminal can commit premeditated murder and let back into the population is insane. THAT is barbaric.
Do you see where I'm going with all of this? Your idea of how we should address crime is actually part of why we continue to have crime. It is also quite barbaric. The US, in general, needs to shift their way of thinking.
Tautology #4. I didn't "address" crime, I addressed first degree murder. You're full of strawmans today, seriously. Claiming how I think about first degree murderers somehow is responsible for why we have crime (not that you ever addressed preventing crime in the first place) is asinine.
Also, this is one topic I'm not going to be nice about. If you say stupid shit about wanting to perpetuate homicide, I'll treat what you say like the stupid shit it is. Take a step back from your words and realize what you're saying: you want to kill people and you wholly endorse it. "This person murdered someone. So let's murder him back! ha! That'll teach 'em!"
Tautology #5. Assuming you're calling capital punishment "homicide". Tautology #6 would be "lets murder him back." No DDM, you would have a point if I took the law into my own hands and did that. Your argument flies out the window when you have court and a lengthy appeals process.
Not to mention, that last part is more emotional nonsense.
I believe I've addressed all of your issues without any needing to exert efforts because I couldn't see substance between the various tautologies and strawmans. I'm not calling you dumb but you need to step your game up, stay on topic, and take emotion out of the equation.
Also, OV congrats on the confirmation bias 👆