|
Post by akamai on Nov 22, 2011 19:37:08 GMT -5
I think you'd just about have to take these things on a case by case basis, wouldn't you? Are juvenile offenders any less likely to be given parole than adults who are serving a life sentence? ALL convictions should be handled on a case by case basis. Age should be a consideration, and also IQ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 11:15:06 GMT -5
I agree that we should do away with the juvenile courts, but age should be a consideration. A youthful offender may have a better hope of rehabilitation than an adult would. I don't believe in rehabilitation. Age should not be a consideration in punishment.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 23, 2011 12:21:51 GMT -5
I agree that we should do away with the juvenile courts, but age should be a consideration. A youthful offender may have a better hope of rehabilitation than an adult would. I don't believe in rehabilitation. Age should not be a consideration in punishment. Hi Joseph, That is hilarious! Where do you get these wierd ideas? Akamai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 12:30:42 GMT -5
Where do you get these wierd ideas? What's so weird about holding criminals responsible for their behavior, past, present and future? A convict's "rehabilitation" is his problem, not mine. He isn't sent to prison to become a different person. He is sent there because he broke the law.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 23, 2011 13:10:40 GMT -5
Where do you get these wierd ideas? What's so weird about holding criminals responsible for their behavior, past, present and future? A convict's "rehabilitation" is his problem, not mine. He isn't sent to prison to become a different person. He is sent there because he broke the law. Joseph, The biggest reason we have overcrowding in our prisons is because WE could not prevent the crime, MORE than the criminal committing the crime. It costs anywhere between $20,000 and 70,000 per year to incarcerate a criminal depending on the type of security prison he is in. An average robbery does not come anywhere close, as far as what is taken compared to what we spend on punishment. It is much cheaper to prevent crimes than to punish those who break them. Akamai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 13:20:17 GMT -5
The biggest reason we have overcrowding in our prisons is because WE could not prevent the crime, MORE than the criminal committing the crime. Can't be done. You can't prevent crime. Only the criminal can prevent it. If he can't, keep him in prison for life. It costs anywhere between $20,000 and 70,000 per year to incarcerate a criminal depending on the type of security prison he is in. An average robbery does not come anywhere close, as far as what is taken compared to what we spend on punishment. So raise taxes. This is a moral issue, not a social issue. We have free will. I depend on my fellow citizens to obey the law. Punish the ones that don't and be done with it. It is much cheaper to prevent crimes than to punish those who break them. You obviously don't know criminals. I do. They commit crime in the first place because they hold the law-abiding responsible for their criminal behavior. The only way to change that attitude is to punish, and keep punishing, as long and as often as necessary, until they change their attitude.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 23, 2011 14:38:12 GMT -5
The biggest reason we have overcrowding in our prisons is because WE could not prevent the crime, MORE than the criminal committing the crime. Can't be done. You can't prevent crime. Only the criminal can prevent it. If he can't, keep him in prison for life. So raise taxes. This is a moral issue, not a social issue. We have free will. I depend on my fellow citizens to obey the law. Punish the ones that don't and be done with it. It is much cheaper to prevent crimes than to punish those who break them. You obviously don't know criminals. I do. They commit crime in the first place because they hold the law-abiding responsible for their criminal behavior. The only way to change that attitude is to punish, and keep punishing, as long and as often as necessary, until they change their attitude.No Joseph, While you cannot prevent ALL crimes from being committed, you CAN prevent crimes. Punishment for crimes already committed is a form of prevention, but deterring would-be criminals from committing crimes also is prevention. Among the things that can prevent crimes would be quality education, and getting rid of the environments that breed crimes. Where have you been? I am sure you weren't born yesterday! Akamai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 14:45:22 GMT -5
Among the things that can prevent crimes would be quality education And yet most who receive low-quality education are law-abiding. Why is that? and getting rid of the environments that breed crimes. And yet most people from crime-ridden neighborhoods obey the law. Why is that? Where have you been? I am sure you weren't born yesterday You excuse murder. I do not. That's where I've been.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Nov 23, 2011 16:24:04 GMT -5
Should we bang up a four year old who took someones sweets? Should they get legal aid? A four year old would not qualify for juvenile court. My point is that a moral sense is developed in childhood, long before the age of majority. But you've said lots of times that the law has NOTHING to do with morality, Joe. You've openly admitted that in your opinion a government is INCAPABLE of doing anything wrong!
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Nov 23, 2011 16:27:35 GMT -5
I agree that we should do away with the juvenile courts, but age should be a consideration. A youthful offender may have a better hope of rehabilitation than an adult would. I don't believe in rehabilitation. Age should not be a consideration in punishment. It depends on what you're talking about. Although I don't agree with you I can understand the point of view that murder is a crime beyond the others and that deserves a special punishment. If you say you don't believe in rehabilitation no matter WHAT crime you're talking about then it's a different matter. If you KNOW that someone WILL be released from prison then it's not only IMO a moral duty but also common sense for the state to do whatever it can to prevent the released inmate from re-offending and that of course DOES include rehab.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 17:03:43 GMT -5
If you say you don't believe in rehabilitation no matter WHAT crime you're talking about then it's a different matter. That is what I am saying. If you KNOW that someone WILL be released from prison then it's not only IMO a moral duty but also common sense for the state to do whatever it can to prevent the released inmate from re-offending and that of course DOES include rehab. The state is not responsible for the behavior of criminals. That's on them. Never mind the immorality of attempting to impose rehabilitation on a convict -- as a practical matter it simply doesn't work. Recidivism rates are higher than ever, and will be as long as we coddle prisoners. Punish and release. That's enough. If a released convict reoffends, punish him again. After #3, keep him in prison until he dies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 17:06:53 GMT -5
But you've said lots of times that the law has NOTHING to do with morality, Joe. I've stated many times that it's not the state's responsibility to make us all into better people. We have free will. That's up to us, not the state. The purpose of law, however, is order. Without the latter civility is impossible. You've openly admitted that in your opinion a government is INCAPABLE of doing anything wrong! If government is of the people, then it does what the people want it to do. In that sense, government can do no wrong. The majority of citizens, however, are often wrong.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 23, 2011 18:22:13 GMT -5
Among the things that can prevent crimes would be quality education And yet most who receive low-quality education are law-abiding. Why is that? And yet most people from crime-ridden neighborhoods obey the law. Why is that? Where have you been? I am sure you weren't born yesterday You excuse murder. I do not. That's where I've been. Joe, That is HILARIOUS! First of all, you think executing an innocent is an acceptable practice. Believe it or not, you are excusing MURDER with that stand. The penal system is not only crime and punishment. It has crime prevention too. There are people who live in the streets, who do not commit crime, just as there are millionaires that do. Of course, there are exceptions in every category when it comes to crime. I guess you were born yesterday! Akamai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 18:39:46 GMT -5
you think executing an innocent is an acceptable practice. Believe it or not, you are excusing MURDER with that stand. And yet yours is the same position. To accept capital punishment is to accept the execution of innocents. IT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. Perfect justice is mathematically and statistically impossible. It's not even desirable.The penal system is not only crime and punishment. It has crime prevention too. Halfway houses may be said to "prevent" crime. Prisons do not, and cannot. That is not their function. There are people who live in the streets, who do not commit crime, just as there are millionaires that do. Exactly. Crime is not a function of income or socioeconomic status. Of course, there are exceptions in every category when it comes to crime. Exceptions do not disprove the rule. No one HAS to commit a crime.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 23, 2011 21:50:03 GMT -5
JP> And yet yours is the same position.
To accept capital punishment is to accept the execution of innocents. IT CANNOT BE AVOIDED.
Perfect justice is mathematically and statistically impossible. It's not even desirable.
Akamai> You are extremely wierd. Although perfect justice is impossibl;e, it is definitely desirable. No one wants to execute an innocent except maybe, a wierd anti-DP person, who would believe that it is ammunition enough to undermine capital punishment.
Executing an innocent is NOT OK, and if any can be definitively proven, you would find a huge swing toward the anti DP faction.
Are you one of those antis hoping to find a wrongful execution? By your posts, you certainly look like one!
|
|