and always carried out privately with no fanfare.If you are going to do it, this is the way to do it, IMO.
One problem is the name of it. Rather than “penalty” it should just be considered as removing a defective unit from the societal mix. We should also get rid of the laws that allow repeated appeals that end up costing far more than just life imprisonment. I realize that this means some who would later be found innocent would be executed. However, rather than stopping them, just set up a system so that the family of anyone found innocent after being executed be paid, say, $1,000,000 which would be charged to the judge, jury, prosecutor, police, and witnesses who were responsible for the guilty verdict. OK, so I’m being a wise ass.
Occam
I have always been a strong believer in exile. Let’s get some island that can hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use that island as a Prison Colony.
The island can easily be monitored for escape attempts by boat or aircraft.
The colonists can be provided with livestock and seed stock. Intermittent technological aide can be provided such as plows and building tools.
We can debate whether they should be provided with electricity or internal combustion tractors/cars.
Anyone can be free to enter the colony as well. No one can ever leave.
The colonists will make their own government and hierarchy.
It should only be for men. Because it would be unfair to put women in a situation like that. Women prisoners could remain in the current internal system.
The entire project should be run on a cost effective basis. In otherwords it should be far less expensive to run than our current system.
I completely agree that the money we spend on our judicial system is outrageous…and unfair to the majority of law-abiding citizens.
We can debate what crimes will get one sent to the colony…but any criminal can volunteer to go there for any offense.
I have always been a strong believer in exile. Let's get some island that can hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use that island as a Prison Colony. The island can easily be monitored for escape attempts by boat or aircraft. The colonists can be provided with livestock and seed stock. Intermittent technological aide can be provided such as plows and building tools. We can debate whether they should be provided with electricity or internal combustion tractors/cars. Anyone can be free to enter the colony as well. No one can ever leave. The colonists will make their own government and hierarchy. It should only be for men. Because it would be unfair to put women in a situation like that. Women prisoners could remain in the current internal system. The entire project should be run on a cost effective basis. In otherwords it should be far less expensive to run than our current system. I completely agree that the money we spend on our judicial system is outrageous...and unfair to the majority of law-abiding citizens. We can debate what crimes will get one sent to the colony...but any criminal can volunteer to go there for any offense.It could turn out like the movie Papillon. ;-)
I have always been a strong believer in exile. Let's get some island that can hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use that island as a Prison Colony. The island can easily be monitored for escape attempts by boat or aircraft. The colonists can be provided with livestock and seed stock. Intermittent technological aide can be provided such as plows and building tools. We can debate whether they should be provided with electricity or internal combustion tractors/cars. Anyone can be free to enter the colony as well. No one can ever leave. The colonists will make their own government and hierarchy. It should only be for men. Because it would be unfair to put women in a situation like that. Women prisoners could remain in the current internal system. The entire project should be run on a cost effective basis. In otherwords it should be far less expensive to run than our current system. I completely agree that the money we spend on our judicial system is outrageous...and unfair to the majority of law-abiding citizens. We can debate what crimes will get one sent to the colony...but any criminal can volunteer to go there for any offense.It could turn out like the movie Papillon. ;-) Exactly..except without the escape. Also no external forces using the colonists as labor. And no officials or guards on the island. No cells. No solitary. Just colonists, and their rules.
I have always been a strong believer in exile. Let's get some island that can hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use that island as a Prison Colony. The island can easily be monitored for escape attempts by boat or aircraft. The colonists can be provided with livestock and seed stock. Intermittent technological aide can be provided such as plows and building tools. We can debate whether they should be provided with electricity or internal combustion tractors/cars. Anyone can be free to enter the colony as well. No one can ever leave. The colonists will make their own government and hierarchy. It should only be for men. Because it would be unfair to put women in a situation like that. Women prisoners could remain in the current internal system. The entire project should be run on a cost effective basis. In otherwords it should be far less expensive to run than our current system. I completely agree that the money we spend on our judicial system is outrageous...and unfair to the majority of law-abiding citizens. We can debate what crimes will get one sent to the colony...but any criminal can volunteer to go there for any offense.It could turn out like the movie Papillon. ;-) Exactly..except without the escape. Also no external forces using the colonists as labor. And no officials or guards on the island. No cells. No solitary. Just colonists, and their rules.A penal colony is a good idea; but IMO, one possible problem would be that other progressive nations might see it as a huge human rights violation, and try to sabotage the whole thing.
One problem is the name of it. Rather than "penalty" it should just be considered as removing a defective unit from the societal mix. We should also get rid of the laws that allow repeated appeals that end up costing far more than just life imprisonment. I realize that this means some who would later be found innocent would be executed. However, rather than stopping them, just set up a system so that the family of anyone found innocent after being executed be paid, say, $1,000,000 which would be charged to the judge, jury, prosecutor, police, and witnesses who were responsible for the guilty verdict. OK, so I'm being a wise ass. OccamHa, yes, but just try getting a law like that passed and enforced in this country. The judges would have a "stand-up" strike! I'd still think the death penalty is immoral. Lois
In addition to all that, why should we lessen the discomfort of a criminal by killing him? To my mind, at least, it is more of a punishment to keep him locked up for life. LoisAre you a sadist, after all? No, I'm a realist. The problem as I see it isn't with my preference for not executing peopel but with the preference of people who think death is somehow a worse punishment than life in prison. They are the sadistic ones becauseof whatbthey think death means. In my view, death is the end of everything for that person. It would be like giving tha criminal a gift, an escape from contemplating his actions and feeling any guilt at all. I also don't think he should be tortured or deprived of food, sleep, exercise, recreation, reading materials, media communications or visits, etc. And if you ask me if I would feel different if the criminal had killed one of my loved ones, of course I would! I might be moved to wring his neck or torture him myself. But that's why we have laws and why we in civilized countries don't allow family members or other civilians to kill or torture people who have committed crimes or who are suspected of committing crimes. Lynch mobs and vengeance killings come to mind. That's not my idea of a civilized society and setting up a government to do the dirty work it is no better, no matter how sterile the process is. LoisBut you said, why should we lessen the discomfort followed by it's more of a punishment to keep him locked up for life. It's a fairly common sentiment from the mouths of anti death penalty advocates. Sounds quite sadistic. Just saying. Take it as you will. The death penalty is even more sadistic, IMO. Lois
I have always been a strong believer in exile. Let's get some island that can hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use that island as a Prison Colony. The island can easily be monitored for escape attempts by boat or aircraft. The colonists can be provided with livestock and seed stock. Intermittent technological aide can be provided such as plows and building tools. We can debate whether they should be provided with electricity or internal combustion tractors/cars. Anyone can be free to enter the colony as well. No one can ever leave. The colonists will make their own government and hierarchy. It should only be for men. Because it would be unfair to put women in a situation like that. Women prisoners could remain in the current internal system. The entire project should be run on a cost effective basis. In otherwords it should be far less expensive to run than our current system. I completely agree that the money we spend on our judicial system is outrageous...and unfair to the majority of law-abiding citizens. We can debate what crimes will get one sent to the colony...but any criminal can volunteer to go there for any offense.Why not a separate place of exile for women! I suspect the women would manage to create better conditions and a more sane and stable society than the men would. Otherwise, I agree with your plan, but where could it be put? There aren't many uninhabited places left (island or otherwise) that could "hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use . . . as a Prison Colony".
Here's another good point Cuthbert. You're using the easy catch phrase guilty. That bends the conversation falsely to support a pro-death angle. We are talking about courts and laws and legal systems here. It's not about innocent or guilty. It's about the charges that were brought against someone. The degree of the crime. The trial and the fairness of the trial. The evidence found afterward that could have changed charges to a lower degree and penalty. The evidence that was or was not allowed into the trial. Judicial review that shows a trial was not carried out optimally. Facts of the trial that came to light afterward that would have changed legal proceedings. Juries. Jury selection, etc etc etc...See what I mean. Your list is about the current system. I'm saying if there was a system that DIDN'T involve judges, evidence, etc. let's say a perfected Lie Detector, what would you say then? How about this: Assuming a lie detector can be created that's 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not) If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they're simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn't murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty. And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist. In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?
I have always been a strong believer in exile. Let's get some island that can hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use that island as a Prison Colony. The island can easily be monitored for escape attempts by boat or aircraft. The colonists can be provided with livestock and seed stock. Intermittent technological aide can be provided such as plows and building tools. We can debate whether they should be provided with electricity or internal combustion tractors/cars. Anyone can be free to enter the colony as well. No one can ever leave. The colonists will make their own government and hierarchy. It should only be for men. Because it would be unfair to put women in a situation like that. Women prisoners could remain in the current internal system. The entire project should be run on a cost effective basis. In otherwords it should be far less expensive to run than our current system. I completely agree that the money we spend on our judicial system is outrageous...and unfair to the majority of law-abiding citizens. We can debate what crimes will get one sent to the colony...but any criminal can volunteer to go there for any offense.Why not a separate place of exile for women! I suspect the women would manage to create better conditions and a more sane and stable society than the men would. Otherwise, I agree with your plan, but where could it be put? There aren't many uninhabited places left (island or otherwise) that could "hold enough people, has suitable land for agriculture and building development and use . . . as a Prison Colony". Well, I think the ratio of male to female prisoners who would warrant colonization(under established sentencing guidelines)is disparate enough where the females wouldn't stress out our system. But after all the data was in certainly a separate colony shouldn't be ruled out. I don't know of any locations off-hand, but there are definitely sparsely inhabited islands big enough. The current residents could be relocated by eminent domain. Remember it isn't for all criminals-just the ones who would warrant colonization under sentencing guidelines. Perhaps 20-30% of our current prison population. I'm just spit balling here. The logistical concerns would be daunting maybe. But an administration should err on the side of frugality and severity.
Cuthbert-How about this: Assuming a lie detector can be created that's 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not) If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they're simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn't murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty. And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist. In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?No. No State instituted killing. I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously. In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine. They wouldn't let me smack my brother. They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence. That's simplified I know. That's how a country should run...A State shouldn't be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware) One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don't want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, "let's talk it over" "quite time" moments.
Good points Lois. Couple things (playing devils advocate now, personally I'm not sure where I fall in this debate): - Cold blood: Not sure the techniques used today could be considered cold blooded. If anything they're too nice. - Costs more: That's seems wrong that it costs more for DP than life in prison, unless you mean under the current utterly flawed system whereby inmates might spend a decade waiting. - General population not endangered: True IF DP inmates are not allowed to communicate with the outside world. - Doesn't lessen capital crime: I think it definitely would IF the system were 99.9% accurate and swift. It doesn't phase would be killers now because of the flaws we've mentioned. - Lessen comfort: That's a good one actually. When I say eye for an eye I mean they took a life, they lose theirs. BUT...my wife on the other hand thinks like you do, why let them off easy by killing them. The other thing I think against that notion is that it depends on the criminal. How many are truly remorseful? How many are just as happy getting 3 square meals a day, exercise, etc. i.e. prison being a good thing for them. NOW, I've always heard that child killers do not fare well in prison because so many inmates themselves have kids. So if that's the case, life in prison, and the torment from other inmates that comes with it, might be a better punishment.
Good points Lois. Couple things (playing devils advocate now, personally I'm not sure where I fall in this debate): - Cold blood: Not sure the techniques used today could be considered cold blooded. If anything they're too nice. - Costs more: That's seems wrong that it costs more for DP than life in prison, unless you mean under the current utterly flawed system whereby inmates might spend a decade waiting. - General population not endangered: True IF DP inmates are not allowed to communicate with the outside world. - Doesn't lessen capital crime: I think it definitely would IF the system were 99.9% accurate and swift. It doesn't phase would be killers now because of the flaws we've mentioned. - Lessen comfort: That's a good one actually. When I say eye for an eye I mean they took a life, they lose theirs. BUT...my wife on the other hand thinks like you do, why let them off easy by killing them. The other thing I think against that notion is that it depends on the criminal. How many are truly remorseful? How many are just as happy getting 3 square meals a day, exercise, etc. i.e. prison being a good thing for them. NOW, I've always heard that child killers do not fare well in prison because so many inmates themselves have kids. So if that's the case, life in prison, and the torment from other inmates that comes with it, might be a better punishment.--Cold-blood does not mean cruelty. It means dispassionate. In other words there is no heat of battle or self defense involved. Execution meets that standard even when and especially when the techniques are "nice." --It does cost more to execute people than to keep them in prison for life. Statistics here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty --99.9% accuracy is impossible as long as flawed humans are involved. (I've addressed this in another post.) --Remorse or lack of it should have nothing to do with the validity of punishment. The punishment, if it's fair, should stand on its own merits without considering something as volatile and impossible to define as remorse. Lois
Ok, no state killing. Why? Why is a state allowed to punish at all? Life imprisonment is a severe punishment and evidently it's ok for the state to do that. I assuming too now that you don't believe war is ever justified, WW2 for example, or rather the US's involvement in it?Cuthbert-How about this: Assuming a lie detector can be created that's 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not) If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they're simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn't murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty. And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist. In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?No. No State instituted killing. I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously. In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine. They wouldn't let me smack my brother. They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence. That's simplified I know. That's how a country should run...A State shouldn't be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware) One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don't want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, "let's talk it over" "quite time" moments.
Ok, no state killing. Why? Why is a state allowed to punish at all? Life imprisonment is a severe punishment and evidently it's ok for the state to do that. I assuming too now that you don't believe war is ever justified, WW2 for example, or rather the US's involvement in it? I get it Cuthbert, you're a tough guy... A real hardliner. Whooo! What part of my replies don't you get? You have re-asked the same question over and over now at least 3 times. You like the death penalty-I don't. End of discussion. You're also an ignorant racist. You brought race up in the other thread...that makes you a racist by default. Despite what your 10th grade level disclaimer stated.Cuthbert-How about this: Assuming a lie detector can be created that's 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not) If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they're simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn't murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty. And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist. In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?No. No State instituted killing. I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously. In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine. They wouldn't let me smack my brother. They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence. That's simplified I know. That's how a country should run...A State shouldn't be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware) One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don't want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, "let's talk it over" "quite time" moments.
I know it's popular among liberals to be against the death penalty. I imagine a lot of folks here are against it. BUT I'd like to know WHY you are against it.I'm against it because it's impossible to deserve the death penalty. It's impossible to deserve the death penalty because we don't have libertarian free will. Stephen
I’m against it because it’s impossible to deserve the death penalty.Do not concur. But then, you can take it up with the victims of some of the more outrageous crimes.
Ok, no state killing. Why? Why is a state allowed to punish at all? Life imprisonment is a severe punishment and evidently it's ok for the state to do that. I assuming too now that you don't believe war is ever justified, WW2 for example, or rather the US's involvement in it? I get it Cuthbert, you're a tough guy... A real hardliner. Whooo! What part of my replies don't you get? You have re-asked the same question over and over now at least 3 times. You like the death penalty-I don't. End of discussion. You're also an ignorant racist. You brought race up in the other thread...that makes you a racist by default. Despite what your 10th grade level disclaimer stated.I'll ignore your vile remarks about me being a racist. As for this thread, evidently you've never participated in a debate before. If you make a statement, your "opponent" in the debate often asks additional questions to draw out some other logical conclusions that follow from believing the statement. So when you basically say "the state should not be allowed to kill", I can logically ask, then does that mean all war (i.e. state sanctioned killing of an enemy, the criminal as it were) is ok. If you respond that No, there are cases where war is justified, then you're being inconsistent (barring other points you might make). You also evidently don't get the fact that I'm posing a hypothetical...99.9% accurate lie detector, etc. (similarly in the Unfair justice system thread).Cuthbert-How about this: Assuming a lie detector can be created that's 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not) If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they're simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn't murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty. And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist. In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?No. No State instituted killing. I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously. In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine. They wouldn't let me smack my brother. They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence. That's simplified I know. That's how a country should run...A State shouldn't be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware) One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don't want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, "let's talk it over" "quite time" moments.
Cuthbert- If you make a statement, your "opponent" in the debate often asks additional questions to draw out some other logical conclusions that follow from believing the statement. So when you basically say "the state should not be allowed to kill", I can logically ask, then does that mean all war (i.e. state sanctioned killing of an enemy, the criminal as it were) is ok. If you respond that No, there are cases where war is justified, then you're being inconsistent (barring other points you might make).What a childish train of thought. Why do I need to debate? You're filling in all my answers for me. Tell me what I should say next. This above paragraph shows that you need to debate with other types of folks. Simpler minded folk.
Cuthbert-You also evidently don't get the fact that I'm posing a hypothetical...99.9% accurate lie detector, etc. (similarly in the Unfair justice system thread).Oh, shit...how did I miss that part?