Category: Let's talk
It's interesting to see different people's views when it comes to how they believe criminals should be punished. Some believe in the death penalty for murderers and sex offenders, but others like me don't believe in it. These people should spend the rest of their lives in prison, with nothing but the memories of what wrong they did. Then again, there are those who learn from their wrong doings and vow to never do it again. So here's my question. Would you believe the person who says that, and it comes across as them being honest and serious? Or, do you not believe in second chances for criminals, no matter how they are perceived.
I believe in second, third, fourth, and one hundredth chances.
... for chicks, to not be raped or beaten.
Consequently that negates a known offender's right to a second chance.
Click click boom
I'll second Leo.
Absolutely agreed with Leo and DG. That kind of offense, you don't deserve a second chance. Murderers and sex offenders have the highest repeat offense rates of any criminals. No way should someone get another chance for that.
Drug criminals also have a high reoffending rate.
I think what is required is long sentences. I don't agree with just leaving prisoners in their cells to think. They should be made to do good things, like making clothes for poor people in developing countries.
The minimum sentence for crimes that lead to death should be 20 years, and for sex crimes fifteen years.
I do agree with Leo also, to an extent. In some, and I say some cases, the woman should be able to tell when something isn't right.
Ryan, you confuse me. Leo is clearly advocating the death penalty for sex offenders and I think murderers as well, but you say you agree with him to a point. And, um, the woman should know when something isn't right? What precisely do you mean by that? In many cases, the offense is committed by someone she trusts. Or, by the time she knows something isn't right, it's too late to get out of. So what exactly do you mean by that?
I wish it were so simple, but it never is. How do you define murder - is it just first degree, premeditated killing? Is it someone who kills an attacker in self-defense? Is it a bar-room brawl that accidentally ends up with someone dead because of the shrapnel of glass/wood on the floor?
What about sex offenders? Is a mutually drug-fueled tryst punishable by death? What about female-on-male rape? Is a 19 year old bound for the electric chair for having a 17-year-old partner?
Of course there are serial killers, serial rapists, unrepentant thugs in both categories - but they're the exception, so what do we do with those people lying in the gray?
I agree with Leo, that nobody deserves being beaten or raped, I don't agree, however, that they should be put to death for it. To me that's the easy way out. They should be either locked away for years apon years, with nothing but a cot and three small meals a day. I know the prison systems here do way more than that for criminals, but I'm not going there.
My other idea which may be far fetched, is that we put them all on a desolate island in the middle of the ocean, but I don't see that as a possibility.
What, and have a Lord of the Flies colony? Well, I can see how that would end up killing most of them, if you're into that.
The serial killers should be fried in the electric chair without the water on the spounge, so they can die a horribly painful deatr. Or, we could put acid on them for a few days, famish them for a few days, then beat them for a fews days like the Roans did. Then, they may not do it again, guaranteed! They'll have their second chance, yet they'll be deformed because of what they've done. But what I said about the electric chair should be done after the second chance.
I am starting to rethink my view on the death penalty as we know it. As a Christian, and a student of the Bible, I don't believe Christ would want it that way. In fact, he reversed the eye for an eye teaching from Leviticus when He said that if somebody hits you, turn the other cheek. Does this mean we should slap murderers and rapists on the wrist when they commit their horrible crimes? Absolutely not, but I am beginning to believe it is not our place to just humanely end their lives, either. What good does it to besides just making sure they never commit the crime again?
I am beginning to believe criminals like this need to be locked away in hard labor camps, and worked till they die of their own wretched natural causes. In this way, we relieve the tax burden on the citizens, and put these deadbeats to work, and although tye're nonmembers of society, they'll still be productive. It's more humane to work a man than to lock him in a box and let him rot, so let's put these animals to good use somewhere they can't get out and hurt somebody else.
Exactly, Jessy. Nothing is solved by killing them.
Now that we've agreed on that basic fact though, let's speak humanly for a moment. You're the brother of a girl who's been raped, and brutally murdered. If I'm that brother, that father, or that friend of he girl, I wanna bust a cap in the criminal myself, or to beat him to death, to torture him like he did to the girl. The human soul seeks revenge, no matter how liberal or "humanitarian" you say you are. We fight for what we love.
That said, when due process is completed, and the jury hands down a guilty verdict, the last thing I want is for the killer to be strapped to a gurney, and given a needle to put him to sleep like a beloved pet. I'd rather he work in a labor camp, suffer the blisters, the injuries of hard labor, the late nights and early mornings, the cruel cold weather and the infernal heat. That, to me, seems like better retribution.
It's not an eye for an eye, a life for a life, etc., but while the bastard's still alive, he can work to repay his debt to society.
So long as he doesn't do any work that the privte sector would otherwise do. That's been a problem in some states: it wasn't the bleeding hearts who disbanded the work programs. It was contractors and groups of private citizens who said it was unfair competition: nobody can compete with prison labor.
This is true, but there are jobs that the normal Americans in the private sector won't do, so illegals do them. We need to unemploy the illegals, and employ the prisoners. If nothing else, make them smash rocks again like they used to back in the day. Put them on the chain gang.
To poster eleven, the acid would eat away the flesh completely ... Um ... even I wouldn't condone that. Nasty mess to clear up.
I think between some hard, laborious work and being locked away in isolation will get the point across that what the prisoner has done is wrong, and they have no choice but to live with the consequences of it. If I was the victim's family member, or a good friend, I'd be happy with that.
Yes, this is true in most cases. But when you turn a man lose, there is always a chance that he will do it again.
Yeah. Unfortunately that's how it is, there's always a chance. Then again, if the crime was bad enough, they shouldn't let him lose again. Ever.
Nope. Don't turn him loose!
Personally in terms of rapists and sex offenders I tink they should be relieved of the most important body parts involved in the commission of such a crime, namely the genetalia.
As much as I like the idea of prison labor, it is commonly argued to break the thirteenth amendment to the US constitution. That is the one about forced labor, IE slavery. Its illegal. Prisoners argue that making them work without pay is slavery, and that is illegal. I can see both sides of the argument.
See, that's the problem. Prisoners have too many rights. No sir! When a man becomes imprisoned for such a crime, they should be stripped of all rights except the basic ones needed for survival, such as food, water and shelter. They have, of course, the right to a fair trial, and appeals, etc., but so what? Let them keep that part, but the rest is made null and void with sentencing.
So then why continue their right to a fair trial at all? Should they not be able to write whatever the wish? Should they all be forced to become christians, or muslims, or hindus? Should they be forced to witness against themselves? Should they lose the right to privacy and denial of search and seizure? If we allow one constitutional right, that of a trial, why deny others?
I cannot agree with any attempt to limit prisoners' rights. First, if they are innocent and convicted wrongly, you are only making it easier for them to be proven guilty again and again. Second, it is a slippery slope. What prevents the law from removing noncriminals' rights if they can already remove those of criminals? I think there should be more punishments, but not those that make people wonder why democracy doesn't extend to the criminal trial system.
The rights of a free man should not be shared by prisoners. Heck, felons lose their right to vote, and if you're in the prison system, at least don't let the 13th amendment apply to them. Actually, here's the way it wouldn't...Pay them for their labor. Nothing much, you understand, but enough to buy candy and stuff in the prison store.
Hmmmmm. Not exactly where I'd take my stance on this honestly. Technically prisoners are in this country and are citizens, and they are limited as to what they can do as it is, so are any rights really taken away from them?
The right to vote is taken from them, as is the right to own guns. They obviously lost the right of liberty, yet they wanna holler about their rights. The only rights a prisoner should have are the right to a fair trial, and of course, their appeals. Other than that, they are told when to wake up, when to eat, when they can go outside, etc.