Posted on 05/01/2014 11:56:15 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
I would be glad to hear the alternatives you think would be more effective.
Do you think our current prison system is effective?
To an extent. Not as much as it could be.
Do you think it's forward-looking, self-sustaining, and is a "Correction Dept" as advertised?
Grandiose and political naming are meaningless to me.
For reckless endangerment, for example, corrective action could include banishment from driving altogether
That would be a punishment.
Shaw and his ilk felt that people in general should be brought to account to justify their value to society as a whole and demonstrate why they should be permitted to continue living.
That contrasts sharply with those who have brutally taken the lives of innocents and who have gone out of their way to demonstrate why they shouldn't.
Frankly, if it were up to me, the death penalty would be on the table for any crime in which the victim would have been justified resisting with deadly force. I'm not saying it should be applied in all cases, but it should be there as an option. In such crimes, it is the criminal who openly declared that their own life meant less to them than the act of victimizing their fellow human.
That would be a punishment.
You miss my point. I would implement that as primarily a PROTECTIVE measure for other drivers. The verificalbe rehab part would be a CORRECTIVE meansure. BOTH are forward-looking.
I would be glad to hear the alternatives you think would be more effective.
See above.
Grandiose and political naming are meaningless to me.
Protecting society, making prisoners productive to pay their way, and having convicts restore financially what they have harmed along with verifiable rehabilitation are certainly NOT meaningless, political B.S. These are very important, substantive alternatives to the go-nowhere "punishment" policies of today's backward, ineffective, and harmful prison systems.
As far as I'm concerned your being stuck on the unacceptable status quo ignores a lot of better alternatives.
“Painless” isn’t the opposite of Cruel and Unusual.
Funny how that word seems to take precedent nowadays. Convicted Murderers are not guaranteed a “painless” death, although you would never know it by the discussions of this subject.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, the standard for Conviction in our Court System, is not “No Doubt”. At least it wasn’t until all those fantasy CSI Dramas showed up on TV.
This is parallel to Fabian Socialism. The justifiers of CP, like the Fabian Socialists, think THEY have the right to formulate who should live and who should die. "There are just some people who should not live." That's pretty much a quote of many supporters of CP as well as supporters of classic Fabian Socialism.
Of course this is patently in opposition to the reality that Christ has redeemed the whole world and died for the sins (crimes and failings) of the whole world. Killing is no longer justified because the perfect One was already killed for everyone's murders and shortcomings. So as far as morality and justice goes, CP is unjust because it is double jeopardy for any and all crimes because they have already been punished and judged 2000 years ago.
It looks like we are just being repetitive.
It is not enough for a thief to on pay back what was stolen if caught. If there is no consequences to stop the wrong actions society would be overrun with law breakers.
Punishment is, and will always be a deterrent in society. If government fails to provide punishment, eventually groups in society, after being overrun, will rise up and force it to happen.
How do you stop speeding on the highways? Those that give false testimony in court? Fist fights in a bar?
The purpose of judicial execution is to make a live criminal dead. For a variety of reasons, this process must be quick and free of sadism (I get the "do what he did to his victim" thing, I really do, but that will never be the law in a nation with an Eighth Amendment).
Hanging, beheading, and firing squad all manage the job reasonably well.
A century of "scientific execution" (gas, electric chair, lethal injection) has failed to improve the process.
To answer your specific question, who do you want to do the research necessary to get an answer and who are the experimental subjects?
IV techs, pharmacists, nurses and doctors have, and should have, a very high barrier against deploying their particular skill sets for killing people.
I'm very pro-death penalty, I think it's moral and just, but I would never, ever use any skills I've acquired in medical training to kill somebody. Pull the trigger, open the trap door, swing the axe - sure.
It's not surprising to me that medical staff at prisons aren't very good at this.
I favor a return to fast. mechanical executions (rope, axe, bullet), and if the people in their wisdom are too squeamish to allow it, I'd abolish the penalty.
Medical executions are exquisitely cruel, because they transform a caring act into a killing. They should be abolished.
BRING BACK OL' SPARKY!
In a way yes. There a nuances that keep coming put of this discussion which I find interesting. But you don't seem to be seriously contemplating the alternatives I raise. Rather than specifically address the substance of what I'm saying you're repeating the same questions. Other than flat rejection with no backup reasoning, you're arguments have not addressed the specific alternatives I've raised. On the other hand, I have explained in detail why I reject punishment. You don't do the same with the alternatives I've raised, you just keep cycling around to punishment as the only consequence available.
It is not enough for a thief to on pay back what was stolen if caught. If there is no consequences to stop the wrong actions society would be overrun with law breakers.
How come you see punishment as the only available consequence? Payback IS a consequence. Depending on the situation, payback could include many things like monetary restitution for loss of interest, loss of opportunity, and pain and suffering from those he stole from. Depending on the severity of the harm, he might have to do at least part of it from prison, but the kind of productive prison I've been talking about.
Punishment is, and will always be a deterrent in society.
CONSEQUENCES are and will always be a deterrent but the purpose of those consequences can be something other than punishment.
The issue isn't "punishment" but consequences. As I've said, valid alternative consequences to punishment are protection of society, valid restitution, productive incarceration with voluntary, solid, and verifiable rehab programs.
If government fails to provide punishment, eventually groups in society, after being overrun, will rise up and force it to happen.
That may be true, but it doesn't make it right. I think that if what I am talking about were seriously and diligently implemented, I think over time, people would be much happier with the result because the law would force criminal to pay their victims back which is not case in today's "punishment" paradigm.
The only thing that I think your scenario about people rising up would possibly be blood-thirsty vengeance of death for some heinous crime. But again, that doesn't make it right. A society that demands protection from dangerous criminals and allows appropriate consequences would be a happier, more peaceful society than a vengeful society IMO. Isn't that the point and the goal of what we're all after: a happier, more peaceful and free society? Again, I think these alternatives would help cultivate a happier society unlike the vengeance consciousness of punishment mentality.
How do you stop speeding on the highways?
Are you reading my responses? I've gone over this with you.
Those that give false testimony in court? Fist fights in a bar?
This could go on forever. With a good-faith effort, you could apply the alternatives I've raised in any of these scenarios. There's a million examples of better alternatives to mindless punishment.
It appears you want to give different names to old ideas. Perhaps you think that changes them.
You keep describing punishment, and pretending it is something different.
Have a great day, God Bless.
A sentence for the purpose of retribution (punishment) may look the same as a sentence with the purpose of restraint and protection, like imprisonment. But you should be able to see that the difference in the reasons and goals for incarceration will be clearly seen in the different methods and approaches of how the whole "Dept of Corrections" is set up and the means by which the sentence is carried out and implemented.
For example, today, "punishment" means that a dangerous criminal is let go because he's "done his time." There is ofttimes relatively little concern for the safety of society or victims, restitution, or rehabilitation. That makes sense because those were not the reasons for incarceration in the first place. But under sentencing for the express purpose of restraint and protection of society and restitution, the priority would be keeping society safe, repaying the victim where possible and reasonable, and verifiable rehab.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.