Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Orion, there should always be an exception, depending on the circumstance of the murder. If it was a serial rapist who raped and killed his victims, then without a doubt he should be fried for his murders. If it was a gun-toting maniac (no offense to all pro-gunners) who shot and killed six people in the course of committing a robbery, then he should be fried. If it was someone who killed his victim(s) using a most grotesque and disgusting method, he should be fried. Those guys who dragged that black guy deserve to be fried. Etcetera.
As for Thompson and Venables, had they been 10 years older, and in the States, a call for the Death Penalty would be not be surprising. But given that they are only 10, and the fact that they committed an ADULT crime, then perhaps the best thing to do is to lock them up for a VERY long time even way past their adult years. Perhaps for the rest of their lives.
Yes, I believe in rehabilitation, but only in small crimes such as robbery, fraud, etc. Serious crimes such as rape, attempted murder, and murder should carry harsher sentences, and even juveniles should be charged as adults when they commit these crimes. Finally, murder committed with pre-meditation (what Thompson and Venables did) should carry the harshest punishment of all.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
posted
"If it was a serial rapist who raped and killed his victims, then without a doubt he should be fried for his murders."
In your opinion.
"If it was a gun-toting maniac (no offense to all pro-gunners) who shot and killed six people in the course of committing a robbery, then he should be fried."
In your opinion.
"If it was someone who killed his victim(s) using a most grotesque and disgusting method, he should be fried."
In your opinion.
See where I'm going with this.
In my opinion, Ham's argument was very good. He said why he disagreed with the death penelty, give rational reasons, and didn't resort to emotionalism. Stating "you're wrong. They should die" is not a good counter-argument. It's nothing more than putting your fingers in your ears, and saying "nyah! You're wrong!"
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
I may have said this before, but that might have been on another board, so what the hell...
The way I see it, if you can work things so that offender X will return to the community reformed, in a position to contribute productively to the society s/he damaged, do so. Big 'if', I know, but if you had the opinions of (insert number) docs and shrinks that X wouldn't reoffend etc. etc., why keep hir inside? The only reason I can make out is to make an example of hir, to try and use X as a deterrent to others who might commit the same offence.
Yes, I know that may sound naive and rest on a damn big 'if', but... Really, wouldn't be nice to put in criminal X at one end of this process and get nice-productive-(remorseful ?)-good-citizen X out at the other end?
And before anyone says anything about relying on the judgement of a gaggle of docs and shrinks to certify X as ready for release, recall how few medics it takes to get someone committed.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
PsyLiam:
Okay, so I may have omitted my reasons.
It is possible to rehabilitate offenders of minor crimes, especially Youths. That's where whatever "Youth Justice Act" is best applied here. To ensure that youths do not commit crimes again.
It is also possible to rehabilitate offenders of major crimes, including murder, provided that the defendant show a measure of remorse. However, the period of incarceration should depend on the crime, NOT the age. It is not justice (in my opinion) if a murderer serves a smaller sentence for murder because he is a youth. I have heard examples up here in Canada that Young offenders as young as ten commit violent crimes and thumb their noses at Police KNOWING they cannot be charged (in Canada, only young offenders from 12-18 years of age can be charged), and even if they do, all they get is house arrest.
In terms of very violent criminals where their crimes are committed with premeditation and deadly results, the chances of full rehabilitation are zero. Usually, these criminals do not show any form of remorse whatsoever. Try rehabilitating a convicted serial rapist and killer, who shows no remorse whatsoever.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
quote:It is possible to rehabilitate offenders of minor crimes, especially Youths. That's where whatever "Youth Justice Act" is best applied here. To ensure that youths do not commit crimes again.
Fine, that supports my argument
quote:It is also possible to rehabilitate offenders of major crimes, including murder, provided that the defendant show a measure of remorse......
I would partly agree with this because I believe that a vast majority of people could be rehabilitated given the right system of dealing with the criminals. Just because they don't show any remorse, does it necessarily mean that they will automatically go out and kill again? Take crimes of passion for example. The murderer may hate the victim with a vengeance and would do it all over again if given the chance, but wouldn't kill anyone else. Does the lack of remorse mean that they should never be released and even fried as you so eloquently put it earlier?
quote:I have heard examples up here in Canada that Young offenders as young as ten commit violent crimes and thumb their noses at Police KNOWING they cannot be charged (in Canada, only young offenders from 12-18 years of age can be charged), and even if they do, all they get is house arrest.
Fine, change the law and lock them up for a bit, give them some new skills whilst they're inside and then let them out into the community. After experiencing life inside and realising that they are not exempt from the law, the majority of them will come around.
quote:In terms of very violent criminals where their crimes are committed with premeditation and deadly results, the chances of full rehabilitation are zero. Usually, these criminals do not show any form of remorse whatsoever. Try rehabilitating a convicted serial rapist and killer, who shows no remorse whatsoever.
The key word in there is serial. If they have been convicted lots of times and rehabilitation efforts have failed, then lock them up forever. However, just assuming that these people are beyond redemption without even trying to rehabilitate them is about as callous an act as the original crime of the criminal. I still don't believe in the death penalty for the reasons I made in my earlier post. It will create much more harm than good and I am still to be convinced about its benefits beyond satisfying the blood thirst of the victims families.
[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
quote: I believe that a vast majority of people could be rehabilitated given the right system of dealing with the criminals. Just because they don't show any remorse, does it necessarily mean that they will automatically go out and kill again?
Which begs the question, WHAT right system? Given the best-ever tried rehabilitation system, the recidivism rate (that is, the people who go out and commit the same crimes or worse again) is STILL 80%.
And people who don't show remorse for their bad actions, there's a word for them. SOCIOPATH. And yes, they'll do it again, and again, and again, because they just don't CARE about the consequences. People such as that go on until they are stopped, permanently.
quote:lock them up for a bit, give them some new skills whilst they're inside and then let them out into the community.
It's called 'school.'
quote: After experiencing life inside and realising that they are not exempt from the law, the majority of them will come around.
You'd like to think so... but it doesn't happen often. Hell, half of them gain 'gang' cultural prestige for having been locked up... some of them may even get to see family members on the inside.
quote: If they have been convicted lots of times and rehabilitation efforts have failed, then lock them up forever.
We have this, too. "Three Strikes, you're out." Isn't working as much as it was hyped to, and the prisons are still filling up.
quote:I am still to be convinced about its benefits beyond satisfying the blood thirst of the victims families.
It insures that that individual will NEVER harm another person again. They won't be paroled, pardoned, escape, or get released some other way. It generally balances out the crime... remember, these aren't milquetoasts who jaywalked. They MURDERED people, usually with what are called 'special circumstances' which usually means in a particularly awful or brutal way. Their deaths should balance the deaths of the person/s they killed. That they don't, that they're usually much softer, is what's unfair about it.
As someone once wrote... "Cruel and unusual crimes demand cruel and unusual punishment. There is then nothing cruel and unusual about it."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Would be a good way to get rid of troublemakers. Send a guy into an asylum and there's a chance he may convince someone he's right. Wipe his mind and everything will be fine, and it's easier to pass through the court than a death sentence!
Not that we'll get it soon. Now brainwashing, that could be improved. I wonder if the turks do that too, apart from their current array of 'processing' prisoners... And they want to get in the EU, harumph!
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
quote:Given the best-ever tried rehabilitation system, the recidivism rate (that is, the people who go out and commit the same crimes or worse again) is STILL 80%.
Which means that 20% don't reoffend. Surely rehabilitation works if you can get these people out into society and contributing effectively. But you'd kill this 20% to stop the 80% reoffending? I'm not saying let everyone out - just the people who show signs of reform. That's what they did with Thompson and Venables - they were questioned by a panel for several hours and it was determined that they could be reformed, so they've been released.
quote:And people who don't show remorse for their bad actions, there's a word for them. SOCIOPATH. And yes, they'll do it again, and again, and again, because they just don't CARE about the consequences. People such as that go on until they are stopped, permanently.
If you did read my previous post, you'll have seen that I supported locking up these people for good, provided that after careful work, it could be shown that they could not be reformed. The 'remorse' argument however doesn't work in certain cases like crimes of passion where there is only one victim and there will not be another. Do you kill them because you can't be bothered to weed out the people who will go on to be useful members of society?
quote:It's called 'school.'
School is for 5-16 year olds (in this country anyway) a lot of whom probably don't understand the real reason behind why they're actually there and so don't put the work in. After spending some time inside, a lot of them will in my opinion realise the value of education and its usefulness in society.
quote:You'd like to think so... but it doesn't happen often. Hell, half of them gain 'gang' cultural prestige for having been locked up... some of them may even get to see family members on the inside.
Again, you seem to be willing to punish everyone, even the people with the possibility of reform because others may cause trouble in the future. In a so called civilised society, that is about as caveman like as you can get. If you really are civilised, you won't employ caveman tactics to counter caveman tactics - it's just counter productive.
quote:We have this, too. "Three Strikes, you're out." Isn't working as much as it was hyped to, and the prisons are still filling up.
For what types of crimes is this used - just serious crimes or for all, including minor theft.
quote:It insures that that individual will NEVER harm another person again. They won't be paroled, pardoned, escape, or get released some other way. It generally balances out the crime... remember, these aren't milquetoasts who jaywalked. They MURDERED people, usually with what are called 'special circumstances' which usually means in a particularly awful or brutal way. Their deaths should balance the deaths of the person/s they killed. That they don't, that they're usually much softer, is what's unfair about it.
So it satisfies the blood thirst of the victims families AND of your own society in general. How silly of me.
[ July 02, 2001: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
