Capital Punishment

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/11/2004, 11:47 pm

I only used the hanging, guilatine and shooting as an example of ways to kill someone. I honestly didn't take into consideration the legal fees, but it would be interesting to see a complete study done on the costs of each (not that I don't believe that second website, I would just like to see the numbers out of curiosity).

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 12/12/2004, 4:07 am

Cracky:

what are you going to do with the guy when he's not only committed crimes in the public fourm, but also in prison? what do you do with a guy that knows he's never going to be outside prison walls again and thinks that it's ok to kill other prisoners because he's going to spend his life in jail anyway? he's no good to a prison society, much less the public sector. life in prison inmates are more likely to incite riots and breakouts. these are the people that will kill prison guards.

how can you justify letting a crazy man kill more people when you could have stopped him from doing it after the first murder?

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 4:17 am

Solitary confinement. They have it for a reason.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 12/12/2004, 5:00 am

but surely, you don't support long term positions in solitary confinement, because that's torture.

what do you do with a man that non of these options works for?

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 12/12/2004, 1:23 pm

Well here's my return Matt. I think you'll be happy to notice that through further reading of the textbook, I know present you with facts of the MODERN legal system in Canada.

Correctional agencies and institutions have three functions. The first is punishment of the offender, once convicted by the court. Punishment fulfills society's need and/or desire for retribution--that is, for inflicting suffering on the offender comparable to the suffering caused by the offence. Retrivution, a popular concept among many, has it's roots in the biblical concept of "an eye for an eye." Punishment is also intended to achieve deterence. Deterrence is the use of fear to discourage or prevent criminal behaviour. When punishment teaches the individual offender that "crime does not pay," and the offender does not commit further crimes out of fear of punishment, specific deterrence has occured. Many people also believe that punishment results in general deterrence. In that case, other members of society, fearing the punishment meted out to an offender, decide against breaking the law.

A second function of correctional agencies is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation consists of actually reforming or improving an offender. As a result, the person chooses not to offend again--not out of fear of punishment, but out of a new acceptance of society's values. Since most offenders do not stay in prison forever, and neighbourhood residents do not want untreated ex-convicts among them, most Canadians agree that rehabilitation is neccessary.(This costs money of course. The money comes from the taxpayers. Most taxpayers have the thought "prisoners have it easy" stuck in their minds. This is false, however and taxpayers refuse to spend more money on the penal system. Unfortunatly most prisoners aren't given the rehabilitation they need. For example less than one-third of sex offenders recieve any sort of rehabilitation.)

The third function of correctional agencies is to protect the public. Jailing violent offenders keeps the public safe from them, at least temporaily. This function is important when there is a social climate of fear of crime and criminals. (The fear of being victimized is high. However the rates of all crimes in Canada are dropping.) (Bain, Colyer 157-158)

Bain M. Colin, Colyer S. Jill. The Human WAy Introducing Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology. Published in Canada by oxford University Press. Oxford University Press Canada 2001.

Well there you go. The system does work, but most criminals don't get the rehabiliation they need, so that does explain why those numbers are so high for you Matt. But with more funding they would decrease. The ball is now back in your court.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 1:52 pm

Bandalero wrote:but surely, you don't support long term positions in solitary confinement, because that's torture.

what do you do with a man that non of these options works for?

The mental torture? Tough Shit. You commit a crime, you pay the price. He's still alive and being fed and clothed, that to me isnt torture. But its a hell of a lot worse than being dead, no?

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 2:05 pm

Cracky wrote:
Bandalero wrote:but surely, you don't support long term positions in solitary confinement, because that's torture.

what do you do with a man that non of these options works for?

The mental torture? Tough Shit. You commit a crime, you pay the price. He's still alive and being fed and clothed, that to me isnt torture. But its a hell of a lot worse than being dead, no?

*nods

We're not saying that the people should just be let off the hook. A severe crime should be met with a severe punishment, executing the person would be commiting the same crime that you're trying to condemn.
As Sinead said, two wrongs don't make a right.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 12/12/2004, 2:11 pm

Solitary confinement isn't just mental torture, though.

A few years ago a couple of ex-cons came to talk to a few classes at my high school. They talked about how when you were in solitary, the guards would ocasionally (I think mainly when a prisoner is 'acting up') come by with a firehose, point it into a small hole in the cell door, and let her rip. The prisoner is smashed against the back wall with the force, usually resulting in broken ribs and other obvious injuries.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 2:12 pm

:|
Well thats obviously a breech of the prisons rules. I mean, when all the laws are followed.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 2:13 pm

Once you're dead, that's it. It doesn't matter if you lived or not. I mean you can believe in an afterlife if you want to but once you are dead you don't care. It's not like after dying you regret everything you've done and want to live again. (this is of course from a non-spiritual aspect, beliefs of an afterlife cannot be prooved.)

Why keep someone alive if it is unnecessary? What good is it for a man to be in jail for life with no chance of parole? What are you socializing him for? He can't be released. if prison is in place to resocialize, and an individual will never be released, than isn't it unnecessary?

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 12/12/2004, 2:19 pm

But prison isn't a place for resocialization. It's for punishment.

As for reasons for not killing people - you might be surprised to hear this, but most of the world is not athiest. So right there is a plethora of reasons, not the list of which is that little phrase "thou shalt not kill".

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 12/12/2004, 3:10 pm

Cracky wrote:
Bandalero wrote:but surely, you don't support long term positions in solitary confinement, because that's torture.

what do you do with a man that non of these options works for?

The mental torture? Tough Shit. You commit a crime, you pay the price. He's still alive and being fed and clothed, that to me isnt torture. But its a hell of a lot worse than being dead, no?

well then let's not stop at mental tourture, let's go ahead and pursuit physical tourture as well. if your going to accept one, might as well accept the other.

everybody gotta die. it happens, the only thing we can hope for is that the death is appropriate. It can be seen that anyone that kills a person in cold blood and makes their death inappropriate, then it is appropriate that they be put to death so that his actions are stopped. As it is today, we have several factors that cause inappropriate death, to have killers in jails and on parole should not be one of them. that is a factor we can eliminate.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 3:47 pm

I disagree. The mental torture is only his own, for his own trouble making. Physical torture involves a second party.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 12/12/2004, 3:48 pm

If you put the most good and pure person in solitary, they will still be experiencing mental torture.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 3:58 pm

True. However, a good and pure person would not be put in solitary confinement if it wasnt warranted. A man who has murdered a person, or reoffended later, and then reoffended in prison, shows a blatant disregard for human life, and the rules. Why shouldnt a person like that be in Solitary Confinement? They'd deserve it.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 12/12/2004, 3:59 pm

Where do you draw the line on what they deserve though? I think Reno's point was that if it's okay to punish someone mentally with solitary, why not physically too?

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 12/12/2004, 4:06 pm

You draw the line by what they've done. Say a man kills someone, and goes to prison. He's in the general population, and he doesnt cause a fight or anything. 25 years later, he's out, without a fuss or anything. He's gone back into the world, and nothing else happens. A man like that, doesnt warrant solitary confinement.

A man who committed many crimes, goes into the general prison population with life without parole. As Reno said, they know they're gonna be there awhile, so they stir it up. Trouble making, riots, whatever. They cause fights, seriously injure people, perhaps rape them, and then murder someone else.

A person like that, deserves solitary confinement. They have no respect, for anything and anyone. If they've killed or seriously harmed people, they deserve the mental torture.

I disagree with physical torture in that, a second party would have to be present, to inflict it. Mental torture is all in ones head. You have to do a sufficient amount of damage to get solitary confinement.

Besides, look at Clifford Olson. He murdered alot of young children around the lower mainland and vancouver island in the 70's and 80's, and then buried them in Richmonds nature park. He is in solitary confinement, because others pose a threat to his life should he be in the general population. He has a computer and a TV in his cell. He isnt mad. Well, not any moreso than when he entered prison.

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 4:10 pm

Same with Carlos Homocah (sp?)

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 12/12/2004, 4:28 pm

you mean Karla Homolka?

My point that I'm trying to make is that once someone kills another person, they lose all rights. They have breached the social contract and therefore by taking the right to life away from an individual they should have their rights taken from them. Read Locke's second treatise on civil government to see what I mean (or just take a look at it on spark notes http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/) A lot of it has to do with property rights, and there is no bigger piece of property that you own than your body.

reza · Post by **reza** » 12/12/2004, 5:45 pm

Read Rousseau's "Social Contract," it states that personal property is the root of evil because people give way to their natural goodness for the attainment and protection of personal property, even your body I suppose. So by attempting to protect your personal property (or body in this case), you are commiting an act of evil, because you will be disregarding your natural goodness trying to bring back something that will not return to you anyways.
Therefore, the initial breach of the social contract (which Rousseau characterized as evil), will be countered by another act of evil (the murder of a person).

Oh, and thanks for the correct spelling of her name