Crime and punishment

[SonOfVoorhees]

Im a realist. Ive worked with the police and probation and have seen a lot of crappy policies that are enabled with the young criminals in the UK. Whether its relocating ex-gang members and giving them a new home else where or free training and education why us law abiding folks have to pay. When it comes to prison i have a great idea.

If you commit a crime and have been given a sentence from 0 to 3 months then put them into a hard core hard labour prison. No tv or computer....just a food, water and sleep areas. Every day you work bashing rock or whatever for 8 hours a day. No communicating with other prisoners. No exersise time. Nothing. They make prison a really horrible place to be in for 1 month, i guarantee people will think before they commit crime. It wont be worth it. Also you lose all your rights apart from the basic one that prisioner or war get. So if your a child murdurer and you get beaten up.....tough. You beat and killed innocent kids....now you get beaten by violent prisoners. We all have a choice in this world, you chose to do the things you do. I agree longterm prisoners should be treated differently, they need training and education so they wont turn to crime when released, but short term prisoners need a short hard shock approach that will stop them from becoming longterm prisioners in the first place.

So what do you guys think about criminals and prison? Is it easy or to hard? What would you do if in charge? In your country are they getting it right?

 

[Lilani]

No exersise time.

See, that's a problem. The exercise is for the prisoner's health, because no physical activity would lead to muscles becoming atrophied, which leads to severe weakness, and if it persist enough the damage could become permanent. Sure I guess "bashing a rock" or whatever would solve this, but if that's the labor they're doing they'd need to be properly trained so that they don't throw out their back or injure themselves. Which is why offering exercise equipment is more common these days--it's safer and it gets the job done.

Otherwise...I really don't know enough about the penal system and how effective it is to really comment on this. But I do see a contradiction in your little prison setup. First, you say this:

No communicating with other prisoners.

Then, you say this:

You beat and killed innocent kids....now you get beaten by violent prisoners.

That makes no sense. If they don't get to communicate with other prisoners, they would never be in a situation to get beaten up. So I think you need to decide on what you want before you start offering up your plans.

 

[Casual Shinji]

If humanity had a correct way to discourage or punish its own violent tendencies, they probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-

in my not so humble opinion,while not condoned by the Geneva convention,i say we institute torture for all violent crimes(if said person can be without a shadow of a doubt proved to have committed them)instead of giving them an easy out like the death penalty.honestly it'd make them think twice about it.*flame shield activated*

In Israel we don't have the death penalty (Except for nazi war-criminals that hepled kill 6 million Jews, but we used that just once for a special occasion - A hanging!) because there would ALWAYS be a doubt as to who committed the crime.
You are not an all knowing entity that can verify who did the crime. Nobody can completely prove it, you can just have enough evidence to convict a person.
If you have the death penalty, then you can't regret a conviction, since the accused is DEAD.
.
Like I said in other forums, we are social animals. A mark of Kain on every criminal stating what he had done would suffice. You could never be a normal person, even if you have reformed and corrected your ways. Would you choose a thief to be your politician?
A drug abuser to watch over your kids?
No. Of course it'll acoompany a punishment, usually involving complete humiliation and physical harm.
Why do Normal people have to pay more money to spend on Criminals?
If you DO have Jail time, then it would be in solitude for a few weeks or months.

 

[emeraldrafael]

depends what you did and what prison you go to. I'll admit, most punishments (in america) dont seem to fit the crime and never will (especially if youre the person who was the victim, or know them).

Crimes are dont get are war crimes. What does it matter if someoen gassed an innocent village? Or if you committed a total genocide. You're consciously starting a war, saying that you're sending citizens to fight and die against people they dont know and cant honestly say they have a good reason to besides the fact you as the country's leader say that those people are evil.

So I'm failing to see how anything else is so horrible that it needs to be punished.

 

[TheIronRuler]

depends what you did and what prison you go to. I'll admit, most punishments (in america) dont seem to fit the crime and never will (especially if youre the person who was the victim, or know them).

Crimes are dont get are war crimes. What does it matter if someoen gassed an innocent village? Or if you committed a total genocide. You're consciously starting a war, saying that you're sending citizens to fight and die against people they dont know and cant honestly say they have a good reason to besides the fact you as the country's leader say that those people are evil.

So I'm failing to see how anything else is so horrible that it needs to be punished.

You're twisting it a bit.
Going into war as a Democracy requires a very valuable resource, public support. The administration manages that resource and uses it in political reforms and the like, but in order to go into war one must have one of three things -
1. A casus beli and a hidden viable reason to go to war
2. The support of the people (And a strong spirit)
3. The support of the brass and the loyalty of the army
.
If you oppose the war you can not participate and protest against it. If it is not a democracy, then the existance of such a thing is a crime .

 

[emeraldrafael]

depends what you did and what prison you go to. I'll admit, most punishments (in america) dont seem to fit the crime and never will (especially if youre the person who was the victim, or know them).

Crimes are dont get are war crimes. What does it matter if someoen gassed an innocent village? Or if you committed a total genocide. You're consciously starting a war, saying that you're sending citizens to fight and die against people they dont know and cant honestly say they have a good reason to besides the fact you as the country's leader say that those people are evil.

So I'm failing to see how anything else is so horrible that it needs to be punished.

You're twisting it a bit.
Going into war as a Democracy requires a very valuable resource, public support. The administration manages that resource and uses it in political reforms and the like, but in order to go into war one must have one of three things -
1. A casus beli and a hidden viable reason to go to war
2. The support of the people (And a strong spirit)
3. The support of the brass and the loyalty of the army
.
If you oppose the war you can not participate and protest against it. If it is not a democracy, then the existance of such a thing is a crime .

but its not a public thing. Congress (in the US) decides to go to war (usually). Then the president says lets do it, roll out the troops. the common man doesnt get to say, hey, i dont want the country to go to war and have it really mean anything. the leader says the citizens must go, to fight a war they deem appropriate and right.

also, we have a thing called a draft and at 18 you have to sign for selective service, saying that you sign away your life tpo the military, should they want it. if you dont go to war when called, you can be locked up and imprisoned. So there's no choice in the matter. You either fight for the country when called, or you leave. my way or the highway.

 

[TheIronRuler]

-snip-

but its not a public thing. Congress (in the US) decides to go to war (usually). Then the president says lets do it, roll out the troops. the common man doesnt get to say, hey, i dont want the country to go to war and have it really mean anything. the leader says the citizens must go, to fight a war they deem appropriate and right.

also, we have a thing called a draft and at 18 you have to sign for selective service, saying that you sign away your life tpo the military, should they want it. if you dont go to war when called, you can be locked up and imprisoned. So there's no choice in the matter. You either fight for the country when called, or you leave. my way or the highway.

A part of the protest is to not participate in the war even if it means you will be imprisoned.
If the population does not support the war it cripples the preformance of the army. If only a bunch of middle aged hippies oppose the war while everyone else feel patriotic, then there's no way in hell they could convince the parliment and President/Prime Minister/Grand Cleric to stop the war.

 

[anANGRYkangaroo]

I still say that every crime should be punished exactly fitting the crime. Steal a grape? Pay for it.
Steal a car? Have yours taken away.
Assault someone? Get ready for a whoopin'.
Kill someone? Say byebye to all the nice people not dying today.
Rape someone? Woo boy, the things that they will do to you...

 

[Son of a Mitch]

Yea, I'm going to have to go with some 'eye for an eye' punishment if it is severe enough. People that do something terrible to others should be punished more than just a bit of time in a prison cell or getting off on parole. You cut off someone's finger? You lose yours the same way. You abuse your children? You are held in a room for a year or so and beaten every day. I assure you that criminals would be scared shitless. And for everyone that says "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," I say that people should be punished, and if it helps stop others from being hurt, it works. You can't really say that for our current justice system, can you?