One of the big questions about policy today is what is the penal system meant to do? Is it there to punish the guilty, and so discourage crime? Or is it to rehabilitate citizens who cannot function in society? I can get behind the the ladder, except for one circumstance. What happens when you have someone who simply does not want to be rehabilitated? What if they don't want to be a part of society but simply want to tear it down, either for their own profit or because they honestly believe it is the right thing to do. What are you supposed to do with someone like that?
Personally, what annoys me to no end is the idea of life with no parole. So you will not kill them but you will make it so that their life has no meaning or purpose? You basically keeping them alive just so they can sit around and watch their life waste away. Honestly, what is the difference between that and the Weeping Angels? Actually the angels are more humane since you have the option of building a new life.
The Death Penalty
Re: The Death Penalty
The difference is that at least with prison the innocent person is still alive and has a chance at rebuilding their life when released when their innocence is discovered after the fact, and the sentencing government could (even should) give them compensation somehow (although that then leads to the question of what qualifies as adequate compensation? And that itself assumes there is such a thing as adequate compensation).ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote: As far as the risk of innocents being killed. Well, innocents being sent to prison isn't such a hot deal either, and in some cases may be as bad/worse.
-
ChiggyvonRichthofen
- Captain
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Death Penalty
My point is that in a perfect system, a person shouldn't be sentenced at all if there are question marks. I wouldn't have a problem if you demand an even higher level of evidence for a death penalty than you need for a conviction (e.g. O.J. was guilty, but I wouldn't sentence him to death), but I don't think there is real compensation for a miscarriage of justice. And yet at times, the risks that some people present for society are greater than the smaller risk of sending away an innocent person. I can't ignore the possibility that a person could conceivably be such a threat that the death penalty is the best option.Dînadan wrote:The difference is that at least with prison the innocent person is still alive and has a chance at rebuilding their life when released when their innocence is discovered after the fact, and the sentencing government could (even should) give them compensation somehow (although that then leads to the question of what qualifies as adequate compensation? And that itself assumes there is such a thing as adequate compensation).ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote: As far as the risk of innocents being killed. Well, innocents being sent to prison isn't such a hot deal either, and in some cases may be as bad/worse.
The owls are not what they seem.
-
The Romulan Republic
- Captain
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:02 pm
Re: The Death Penalty
I am opposed to the death penalty on both moral grounds (I generally believe that it is wrong to take intelligent life deliberately, and particularly for any purpose other than defence), and on practical grounds (the legal process is incredibly expensive, and I'm not sure that we can reduce that much without increasing the risk of killing an innocent person by mistake). And, of course, their is the terrible and ever-present risk of killing a wrongfully convicted person. At least someone wrongfully imprisoned can be released and compensated, as others have discussed.
As to weather life in prison is more merciful or not... its not my main concern. I don't believe in cruelty, that the Justice System should be needlessly harsh, and it should rehabilitate where possible, but to me, the Justice System's primary goal should be public safety, and the primary purpose of incarcerating someone is to separate a dangerous person from the public. If a criminal is not a threat to the physical safety of others (i.e. people who committed petty theft, possessed marijuana, etc.), they generally don't belong in prison, and if they are, then they should be in either a prison or an asylum, and it should probably be very hard for them to ever get out unless we can be reasonably certain that they no longer pose a threat.
Of course, putting someone in prison doesn't prevent them from committing violence against guards or fellow inmates. So if I was going to support the Death Penalty for anyone, it would likely be those who committed violent crimes while incarcerated. But even that, in practice, would not be something I could support.
As to weather life in prison is more merciful or not... its not my main concern. I don't believe in cruelty, that the Justice System should be needlessly harsh, and it should rehabilitate where possible, but to me, the Justice System's primary goal should be public safety, and the primary purpose of incarcerating someone is to separate a dangerous person from the public. If a criminal is not a threat to the physical safety of others (i.e. people who committed petty theft, possessed marijuana, etc.), they generally don't belong in prison, and if they are, then they should be in either a prison or an asylum, and it should probably be very hard for them to ever get out unless we can be reasonably certain that they no longer pose a threat.
Of course, putting someone in prison doesn't prevent them from committing violence against guards or fellow inmates. So if I was going to support the Death Penalty for anyone, it would likely be those who committed violent crimes while incarcerated. But even that, in practice, would not be something I could support.
