So the fear of the death penalty causes some criminals to refrain from murdering the victim, whose survival increases the likelihood of being caught, but this same fear does not deter the willingness to commit the crime? Why?
Because if you're a rapist you're probably fucked in the head somehow? Really, anyone who's willing to use another person as a pure sexual object probably has a warped self-view.
Psycho Internet Hawk on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
Yes, but rape is not something that can really be deterred in our culture until we have a paradigmatic shift in our sexual notions. Thus, it is silly to view punishment as a political motive.
So the fear of the death penalty causes some criminals to refrain from murdering the victim, whose survival increases the likelihood of being caught, but this same fear does not deter the willingness to commit the crime? Why?
Because if you're a rapist you're probably fucked in the head somehow? Really, anyone who's willing to use another person as a pure sexual object probably has a warped self-view.
Generally, rape has more to do with control and/or a delusion of actual love than simply sexual desire.
The death penalty for murder doesn't deter them from killing the victim so much as a death penalty for rape would simply give them a perceived extra incentive for killing the victim.
Or the death penalty for rape gives some criminals added incentive to not rape.
Willem on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
The death penalty for murder doesn't deter them from killing the victim so much as a death penalty for rape would simply give them a perceived extra incentive for killing the victim.
Or the death penalty for rape gives some criminals added incentive to not rape.
The death penalty for murder doesn't deter them from killing the victim so much as a death penalty for rape would simply give them a perceived extra incentive for killing the victim.
Or the death penalty for rape gives some criminals added incentive to not rape.
It is the certainty of punishment, not the severity, that is the prominent factor in judicial deterrence.
According to the New York Times, The Supreme Court will evaluate the constitutionalilty of capital punishment in the case of rape. Specifically, they will investigate the death penalty in the case of child rape. Now I am against the death penalty in ALL cases, but I understand the retributivist stance (punishment should be equal to the crime) and I think it has it's merits. However, I do not see how a rapist can be sentenced to death, even in the case of a child rapist. There is no way that the punishment fits the crime. While being one of the worst crimes and perhaps the most despicable and execrable one, Rape only warrants the death penalty in a justice system based on deterrence, which the Supreme Court constantly decides against.
Here's why it's a bad idea: If the rapist is going to die when/if he gets caught anyway, what's to stop him from just killing his victim afterwards?
The current system of throwing child rapists in jail and being every prisoner's personal bitch works just dandy.
On the subject of death and daemons disappearing: arrows sure are effective in Lyra's universe. Seems like if you get shot once, you're dead - no lingering deaths with your daemon huddling pitifully in your arms, just *thunk* *argh* *whoosh*. A battlefield full of the dying would just be so much more depressing when you add in wailing gerbils and dogs.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
This was mentioned earlier, but seriously, wouldn't this create an incentive for rapists to kill their victims?
Like, it's not going to make the punishment any worse if caught (unlike now), and it removes the primary witness. The death penalty as a deterrent is relatively worthless, but that doesn't mean the incentive to kill would be similarly ineffective.
its been brought up on every goddamn page!
Get bent. It was consistently being ignored in favor of wankery over less practical concerns
So the fear of the death penalty causes some criminals to refrain from murdering the victim, whose survival increases the likelihood of being caught, but this same fear does not deter the willingness to commit the crime? Why?
The death penalty does not effectively deter people from committing murder, because most people either murder without considering the consequences, or consider the consequences and do so anyways because they don't care if they get caught or don't believe they will get caught.
That's a completely separate issue from the fact that there's a great deal of practical value in having the penalty for killing someone be harsher than any other crime, regardless of what the punishment is.
Once you have another crime whose punishment is set such that committing said other crime + murder carries no more severe consequences than committing the other crime by itself, you're in deep shit; especially in a crime like rape where's there's a great deal of value in terms of not getting caught to be had in killing the victim, thus where fear of greater consequences may be the only incentive to not murder your victim.
@Cat:
Sorry, I didn't realize the thread title was "Capital Punishment for Rape? NOBODY POINT OUT THE HUGE GAPING FLAW". Especially when it's so freakin' obvious this guy didn't get it. Good thing y'all didn't talk about it, I'd sure hate for people to learn anything.
After seeing the long term damage done to friends that have been raped the death penalty is realistically to nice under eye for an eye justice. We do not currently have the technology to eye for an eye a rapist. The long term mental damage can be incalculatable. We are talking ruining someones life. Dead is dead, waking up every night crying hysterically from nightmares, years of therapy, no hope of a "normal" life, any number of mental dissorders. No sorry, we dont have a penalty that matches up. Death doesnt even compare to the life some victims end up leading. In some ways murder is more humane.
.
Thanks for implying I'd be better off dead. It really made my morning.
Wow, I missed that post of his. Deth, in many ways you're the people I was talking about on page one :?
Im sorry you feel i was implying you would be better off dead. Ive watched people i care about deeply struggle through the after effects.
We dont exercise the death penalty for violent rapists, and murders because we wish to punish the offender. The purpose of punishment is to convince the criminal to reform.
We kill them because the risk of letting them strike again is far, far to great.
Detharin on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
Also, deterrence also presupposes that people would do so if the crimes weren't enough - that people are inclined to do it, but we need to deter them from the crime for the greater good. With retribution, the suppose the criminal knows it's bad, but wishes an exception to be made for him or her.
If you oppose capital punishment on principle it doesn't really matter what crime a person commits, you don't support capital punishment.
And I happen to be of the opinion that trying to punish criminals in proportion to the suffering they have inflicted is not a good thing. It lowers the morality of the state to the morality of the criminal. If the criminal tortures someone, the state tortures the criminal.
Well, I'm not a criminal, and I don't want to torture anyone and I don't want the state I am a corporate member of to torture anyone. I want the actions of the government to reflect my values, not the values of criminals.
edit:Also -- even under the eye-for-eye (two-eyes-for-an-eye?) paradigm that gets us this Off With Their Heads approach to [child] rape, it seems to me that a life of waking up in prison is a lot closer to a life of waking up from nightmares, etc., than is being dead.
If you oppose capital punishment on principle it doesn't really matter what crime a person commits, you don't support capital punishment.
And I happen to be of the opinion that trying to punish criminals in proportion to the suffering they have inflicted is not a good thing. It lowers the morality of the state to the morality of the criminal. If the criminal tortures someone, the state tortures the criminal.
Well, I'm not a criminal, and I don't want to torture anyone and I don't want the state I am a corporate member of to torture anyone. I want the actions of the government to reflect my values, not the values of criminals.
We dont exercise the death penalty for violent rapists, and murders because we wish to punish the offender. The purpose of punishment is to convince the criminal to reform.
We kill them because the risk of letting them strike again is far, far to great.
I'd still rather keep them in prison forever. Pragmatic reason: it's cheaper, and there's no chance of accidentally killing an innocent person. Selfish reason: it sure as hell wouldn't make me feel any better (even if he was likely to be caught, which he isn't.)
Just so you know, you might want to be careful about talking about the experiences of a group of people you're not a part of. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it comes off a lot like "There is one true way to react to a rape, and if you're not going through X amount of obvious trauma/have your life utterly distroyed, what happened to you isn't really that bad/you're not a proper victim." Plus, rape is not at all similar to murder, and it's not so great having the two compared. What happened was horrible, but I'm still very glad to be alive.
Well, the way things work now, yes, execution is too expensive. But this argument assumes that if we made execution more common, nothing about the system would change to adapt to that.
If you took a prisoner outside, shot him, then threw his body in a ditch, no, it would be pretty fucking cheap.
Well, the way things work now, yes, execution is too expensive. But this argument assumes that if we made execution more common, nothing about the system would change to adapt to that.
If you took a prisoner outside, shot him, then threw his body in a ditch, no, it would be pretty fucking cheap.
Mmm, the inevitable violent uprising when things resembled rather obviously a fascist state might be a bit more costly though.
I fail to see how being more efficient about executing people that have been judicially sentenced to death resembles fascism.
Though, for the record, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. I mean, killing people is necessary sometimes, but it's never "justice". There's no right part to murder. Not ever.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to argue in favour of it, make a fucking argument. None of this death row shit. Appeals aside, if you want to kill someone, and you have him securely locked in a cage, killing him should be as easy as killing him.
If you oppose capital punishment on principle it doesn't really matter what crime a person commits, you don't support capital punishment.
And I happen to be of the opinion that trying to punish criminals in proportion to the suffering they have inflicted is not a good thing. It lowers the morality of the state to the morality of the criminal. If the criminal tortures someone, the state tortures the criminal.
Well, I'm not a criminal, and I don't want to torture anyone and I don't want the state I am a corporate member of to torture anyone. I want the actions of the government to reflect my values, not the values of criminals.
I would have limed this the first time around, but I figured it stands on its own.
I fail to see how being more efficient about executing people that have been judicially sentenced to death resembles fascism.
Though, for the record, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. I mean, killing people is necessary sometimes, but it's never "justice". There's no right part to murder. Not ever.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to argue in favour of it, make a fucking argument. None of this death row shit. Appeals aside, if you want to kill someone, and you have him securely locked in a cage, killing him should be as easy as killing him.
The appeals are the expensive part, though, and we can't really skip them, considering we really, really don't want to be killing people if it turns out they didn't commit the crime. The actual needle-in-the-arm bit is pretty cheap.
I fail to see how being more efficient about executing people that have been judicially sentenced to death resembles fascism.
Though, for the record, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. I mean, killing people is necessary sometimes, but it's never "justice". There's no right part to murder. Not ever.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to argue in favour of it, make a fucking argument. None of this death row shit. Appeals aside, if you want to kill someone, and you have him securely locked in a cage, killing him should be as easy as killing him.
The appeals are the expensive part, though, and we can't really skip them, considering we really, really don't want to be killing people if it turns out they didn't commit the crime. The actual needle-in-the-arm bit is pretty cheap.
Also, as a minor side note, possibly much less humane than just shooting them through the head.
If you oppose capital punishment on principle it doesn't really matter what crime a person commits, you don't support capital punishment.
And I happen to be of the opinion that trying to punish criminals in proportion to the suffering they have inflicted is not a good thing. It lowers the morality of the state to the morality of the criminal. If the criminal tortures someone, the state tortures the criminal.
Well, I'm not a criminal, and I don't want to torture anyone and I don't want the state I am a corporate member of to torture anyone. I want the actions of the government to reflect my values, not the values of criminals.
We dont exercise the death penalty for violent rapists, and murders because we wish to punish the offender. The purpose of punishment is to convince the criminal to reform.
We kill them because the risk of letting them strike again is far, far to great.
I'd still rather keep them in prison forever. Pragmatic reason: it's cheaper, and there's no chance of accidentally killing an innocent person. Selfish reason: it sure as hell wouldn't make me feel any better (even if he was likely to be caught, which he isn't.)
Just so you know, you might want to be careful about talking about the experiences of a group of people you're not a part of. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it comes off a lot like "There is one true way to react to a rape, and if you're not going through X amount of obvious trauma/have your life utterly distroyed, what happened to you isn't really that bad/you're not a proper victim." Plus, rape is not at all similar to murder, and it's not so great having the two compared. What happened was horrible, but I'm still very glad to be alive.
I fail to see how being more efficient about executing people that have been judicially sentenced to death resembles fascism.
Though, for the record, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. I mean, killing people is necessary sometimes, but it's never "justice". There's no right part to murder. Not ever.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to argue in favour of it, make a fucking argument. None of this death row shit. Appeals aside, if you want to kill someone, and you have him securely locked in a cage, killing him should be as easy as killing him.
The appeals are the expensive part, though, and we can't really skip them, considering we really, really don't want to be killing people if it turns out they didn't commit the crime. The actual needle-in-the-arm bit is pretty cheap.
You can't tell me the appeals system is as efficient as it can be.
I fail to see how being more efficient about executing people that have been judicially sentenced to death resembles fascism.
Though, for the record, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. I mean, killing people is necessary sometimes, but it's never "justice". There's no right part to murder. Not ever.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to argue in favour of it, make a fucking argument. None of this death row shit. Appeals aside, if you want to kill someone, and you have him securely locked in a cage, killing him should be as easy as killing him.
The appeals are the expensive part, though, and we can't really skip them, considering we really, really don't want to be killing people if it turns out they didn't commit the crime. The actual needle-in-the-arm bit is pretty cheap.
You can't tell me the appeals system is as efficient as it can be.
So now we should spend time and money making justice more swift and effective for people we've already determined to kill? Not quite seeing the hurry here.
Because that's the only way that arguing for the death penalty is viable, financially speaking?
If any part of the prison system is slow, tedious, and bureaucratic, I would want it to be the branch that is responsible for executing people. With the way our society and government run, I don't think their is a way to have a fully effective, swift or financially viable system of capital punishment, which makes you wonder why we have it at all.
Because that's the only way that arguing for the death penalty is viable, financially speaking?
If any part of the prison system is slow, tedious, and bureaucratic, I would want it to be the branch that is responsible for executing people. With the way our society and government run, I don't think their is a way to have a fully effective, swift or financially viable system of capital punishment, which makes you wonder why we have it at all.
One of many reasons I am opposed to the death penalty.
Because that's the only way that arguing for the death penalty is viable, financially speaking?
If any part of the prison system is slow, tedious, and bureaucratic, I would want it to be the branch that is responsible for executing people. With the way our society and government run, I don't think their is a way to have a fully effective, swift or financially viable system of capital punishment, which makes you wonder why we have it at all.
One of many reasons I am opposed to the death penalty.
What made me reconsider my stance on capital punishment is Singapore's policy on drug dealers. If they find enough product on you for you to be booked as distributing/trafficking, you get hanged.
I fail to see how being more efficient about executing people that have been judicially sentenced to death resembles fascism.
Though, for the record, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. I mean, killing people is necessary sometimes, but it's never "justice". There's no right part to murder. Not ever.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to argue in favour of it, make a fucking argument. None of this death row shit. Appeals aside, if you want to kill someone, and you have him securely locked in a cage, killing him should be as easy as killing him.
The appeals are the expensive part, though, and we can't really skip them, considering we really, really don't want to be killing people if it turns out they didn't commit the crime. The actual needle-in-the-arm bit is pretty cheap.
You can't tell me the appeals system is as efficient as it can be.
So now we should spend time and money making justice more swift and effective for people we've already determined to kill? Not quite seeing the hurry here.
The only problem I have is that we give mandatory appeals to capital punishment, but not crime sentences that will see you in jail for the rest of your life. They are essentially the same, one of them is death by injection, the other is death by being in a small box with criminals who rape you. Why shouldn't you get the same appeals if you're going to die due to the justice system either way?
Capital Punishment ought to be the cheaper option. The only reason it isn't is because it gets special caveats granted to it that life in prison ought to be getting anyway. Hell, with the messed up way things are right now I think I'd rather be convicted of capital punishment than life in prison; you have a much better chance of getting appealed out of the prison system and have better accommodations available to you while you're incarcerated.
We dont exercise the death penalty for violent rapists, and murders because we wish to punish the offender. The purpose of punishment is to convince the criminal to reform.
We kill them because the risk of letting them strike again is far, far to great.
I'd still rather keep them in prison forever. Pragmatic reason: it's cheaper, and there's no chance of accidentally killing an innocent person. Selfish reason: it sure as hell wouldn't make me feel any better (even if he was likely to be caught, which he isn't.)
Just so you know, you might want to be careful about talking about the experiences of a group of people you're not a part of. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it comes off a lot like "There is one true way to react to a rape, and if you're not going through X amount of obvious trauma/have your life utterly distroyed, what happened to you isn't really that bad/you're not a proper victim." Plus, rape is not at all similar to murder, and it's not so great having the two compared. What happened was horrible, but I'm still very glad to be alive.
Im not going to disagree with you. However im that good friend that gets called to help pick up the pieces when they got home from the hospital. Ive watched a damn good friend shrug it off because its just one more tramautic experience on the long list of tramautic experiences, and watched a woman i care for deeply struggle for over 10 years and counting with the damage done to her when she was a child. Im glad you survived, im glad you are strong enough to get through it.
Not everyone is, and <deity of choice> willing ill never get another phone call at 3am that says its time to go be the best friend i can in face of the impossible.
If just going on the numbers. In the first year alone recidivism rates for rapists and child molesters are around 9% and 6% respectively. Studies have shown that this jumps to 39% and 52% over a 25 year period.
In 2003 the mean length of time a violent rapist spent in prison for his crime was 136 months (excluding life sentences). Or around 11.3 years. Think about that for every 100 rapes that get reported, where the guilty is caught, proven guilty, and convicted 39 will rape again within 36 years. This isnt even considering if their are multiple offenses before they get rearrested, just that they get rearrested for a felony of a sexual nature.
The median length of time for rapists was 98 months. Which means half the sentences where shorter, and half longer. Thats less than 8 years. Half of all rapists being released before serving 8 years in prison for the crime?
Im sorry, from a personal standpoint its unacceptable that either child molesters or rapists be allowed back into the general population. You just voided your humanity card. If found guilty execute them.
And whomever said its better to release 1000 murders than convict one innocent man is insane. If you kill 1000 murders and 1 innocent man you have 1 innocent man dead, and 1000 murders. If you let them loose you have 1000 innocent people dead. Well with a 7% recidivism rate you could argue we only have 70 innocent people dead. 70 is still greater than one however.
The only problem I have is that we give mandatory appeals to capital punishment, but not crime sentences that will see you in jail for the rest of your life. They are essentially the same, one of them is death by injection, the other is death by being in a small box with criminals who rape you. Why shouldn't you get the same appeals if you're going to die due to the justice system either way?
Capital Punishment ought to be the cheaper option. The only reason it isn't is because it gets special caveats granted to it that life in prison ought to be getting anyway. Hell, with the messed up way things are right now I think I'd rather be convicted of capital punishment than life in prison; you have a much better chance of getting appealed out of the prison system and have better accommodations available to you while you're incarcerated.
ahahahhahahha oh god you really don't know anything much about prisons do you
And whomever said its better to release 1000 murders than convict one innocent man is insane. If you kill 1000 murders and 1 innocent man you have 1 innocent man dead, and 1000 murders. If you let them loose you have 1000 innocent people dead. Well with a 7% recidivism rate you could argue we only have 70 innocent people dead. 70 is still greater than one however.
Well, I personally believe in ethical calculus but I don't think many people agree with me. It gets downright silly when you start to take it to logical conclusions.
For example, what if you had 100% recidivism rates for murder? Would it then be best to execute everyone you catch, so long as you reach a 1:1 innocent/guilty parity? I know that a 50-50 justice system wouldn't be good enough for me. Or, suppose that we had 0% recidivism for a crime. Should that mean no punishment, your first (and only, I suppose) time is free?
ahahahhahahha oh god you really don't know anything much about prisons do you
Edit: sorry there, didn't notice the bolding. I was under the impression that Death Row was a better spot than general population, having generally better conditions and not needing to be around a bunch of violent criminals. While the isolation probably does get to you, I'd certainly take it above being in a normal maximum security prison. Accommodations meaning the general state of your life, and less the specific items you get to play with while you're stuck in a concrete and metal box.
Singapore hangs people all the fucking time. I think they have the highest execution rate for their population in the world.
They also have mandatory death penalties for drug trafficking. That's not justice, that's a campaign of terror.
I lived there for a couple of years. You know those slips you get in the plane before landing in some countries, boarding passes or whatever (I'm not sure what they're called) that you're supposed to present with your passport at the customs?
Well, the ones that were in use a few years back, when I first went there were like this:
"Death penalty for drug trafficking."
"Welcome to Singapore"
"Please fill the following information blah blah blah"
And yes, it was in bolded red fucking letters.
Singapore is a police state. I'm a bit hesitant to say that it works, but it does seem to. I don't think the same system would function for a bigger country though.
Have there been any recent threads on sexuality in generally in D&D? I'd be interested in hearing D&D's thoughts on the issue. Do women biologically have less of a sex drive than men or does society's perception of women sexuality cause them to repress it?
Let's say, hypothetically, that a woman raped a man by forcing him to have an erection and then having vaginal intercourse with him. To me, instinctively, this seems not as bad as a man raping a woman. Why is that? Is it simply because it's not as painful? Is it because the man will enjoy sex more? Is it a result of societal perceptions? A combination of all three?
How would one go about correcting societal perception if it really is the root of the problem (assuming one could magically change the thoughts of everyone). Is the ideal solution something like in Women on the Edge of Time where men and women have become almost identical (to the point of men even breastfeeding)? What about the significance of sex? If we downplay it, it loses some of its appeal and makes it less special, but if we regard it as too sacred that also creates problems.
Sorry if these questions seem dumb/this is not the right place to ask.
Posts
Because if you're a rapist you're probably fucked in the head somehow? Really, anyone who's willing to use another person as a pure sexual object probably has a warped self-view.
Generally, rape has more to do with control and/or a delusion of actual love than simply sexual desire.
Or the death penalty for rape gives some criminals added incentive to not rape.
See my immediate post.
It is the certainty of punishment, not the severity, that is the prominent factor in judicial deterrence.
Here's why it's a bad idea: If the rapist is going to die when/if he gets caught anyway, what's to stop him from just killing his victim afterwards?
The current system of throwing child rapists in jail and being every prisoner's personal bitch works just dandy.
Get bent. It was consistently being ignored in favor of wankery over less practical concerns
The death penalty does not effectively deter people from committing murder, because most people either murder without considering the consequences, or consider the consequences and do so anyways because they don't care if they get caught or don't believe they will get caught.
That's a completely separate issue from the fact that there's a great deal of practical value in having the penalty for killing someone be harsher than any other crime, regardless of what the punishment is.
Once you have another crime whose punishment is set such that committing said other crime + murder carries no more severe consequences than committing the other crime by itself, you're in deep shit; especially in a crime like rape where's there's a great deal of value in terms of not getting caught to be had in killing the victim, thus where fear of greater consequences may be the only incentive to not murder your victim.
@Cat:
Sorry, I didn't realize the thread title was "Capital Punishment for Rape? NOBODY POINT OUT THE HUGE GAPING FLAW". Especially when it's so freakin' obvious this guy didn't get it. Good thing y'all didn't talk about it, I'd sure hate for people to learn anything.
Im sorry you feel i was implying you would be better off dead. Ive watched people i care about deeply struggle through the after effects.
We dont exercise the death penalty for violent rapists, and murders because we wish to punish the offender. The purpose of punishment is to convince the criminal to reform.
We kill them because the risk of letting them strike again is far, far to great.
edit:Also -- even under the eye-for-eye (two-eyes-for-an-eye?) paradigm that gets us this Off With Their Heads approach to [child] rape, it seems to me that a life of waking up in prison is a lot closer to a life of waking up from nightmares, etc., than is being dead.
I'd still rather keep them in prison forever. Pragmatic reason: it's cheaper, and there's no chance of accidentally killing an innocent person. Selfish reason: it sure as hell wouldn't make me feel any better (even if he was likely to be caught, which he isn't.)
Just so you know, you might want to be careful about talking about the experiences of a group of people you're not a part of. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it comes off a lot like "There is one true way to react to a rape, and if you're not going through X amount of obvious trauma/have your life utterly distroyed, what happened to you isn't really that bad/you're not a proper victim." Plus, rape is not at all similar to murder, and it's not so great having the two compared. What happened was horrible, but I'm still very glad to be alive.
If you took a prisoner outside, shot him, then threw his body in a ditch, no, it would be pretty fucking cheap.
Mmm, the inevitable violent uprising when things resembled rather obviously a fascist state might be a bit more costly though.
Though, for the record, I'm not generally in favour of the death penalty. I mean, killing people is necessary sometimes, but it's never "justice". There's no right part to murder. Not ever.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to argue in favour of it, make a fucking argument. None of this death row shit. Appeals aside, if you want to kill someone, and you have him securely locked in a cage, killing him should be as easy as killing him.
I would have limed this the first time around, but I figured it stands on its own.
The appeals are the expensive part, though, and we can't really skip them, considering we really, really don't want to be killing people if it turns out they didn't commit the crime. The actual needle-in-the-arm bit is pretty cheap.
Also, as a minor side note, possibly much less humane than just shooting them through the head.
Well put.
You can't tell me the appeals system is as efficient as it can be.
So now we should spend time and money making justice more swift and effective for people we've already determined to kill? Not quite seeing the hurry here.
If any part of the prison system is slow, tedious, and bureaucratic, I would want it to be the branch that is responsible for executing people. With the way our society and government run, I don't think their is a way to have a fully effective, swift or financially viable system of capital punishment, which makes you wonder why we have it at all.
One of many reasons I am opposed to the death penalty.
Me too. *HIGH FIVE*
They don't hang people that often.
The only problem I have is that we give mandatory appeals to capital punishment, but not crime sentences that will see you in jail for the rest of your life. They are essentially the same, one of them is death by injection, the other is death by being in a small box with criminals who rape you. Why shouldn't you get the same appeals if you're going to die due to the justice system either way?
Capital Punishment ought to be the cheaper option. The only reason it isn't is because it gets special caveats granted to it that life in prison ought to be getting anyway. Hell, with the messed up way things are right now I think I'd rather be convicted of capital punishment than life in prison; you have a much better chance of getting appealed out of the prison system and have better accommodations available to you while you're incarcerated.
Im not going to disagree with you. However im that good friend that gets called to help pick up the pieces when they got home from the hospital. Ive watched a damn good friend shrug it off because its just one more tramautic experience on the long list of tramautic experiences, and watched a woman i care for deeply struggle for over 10 years and counting with the damage done to her when she was a child. Im glad you survived, im glad you are strong enough to get through it.
Not everyone is, and <deity of choice> willing ill never get another phone call at 3am that says its time to go be the best friend i can in face of the impossible.
If just going on the numbers. In the first year alone recidivism rates for rapists and child molesters are around 9% and 6% respectively. Studies have shown that this jumps to 39% and 52% over a 25 year period.
In 2003 the mean length of time a violent rapist spent in prison for his crime was 136 months (excluding life sentences). Or around 11.3 years. Think about that for every 100 rapes that get reported, where the guilty is caught, proven guilty, and convicted 39 will rape again within 36 years. This isnt even considering if their are multiple offenses before they get rearrested, just that they get rearrested for a felony of a sexual nature.
The median length of time for rapists was 98 months. Which means half the sentences where shorter, and half longer. Thats less than 8 years. Half of all rapists being released before serving 8 years in prison for the crime?
Im sorry, from a personal standpoint its unacceptable that either child molesters or rapists be allowed back into the general population. You just voided your humanity card. If found guilty execute them.
And whomever said its better to release 1000 murders than convict one innocent man is insane. If you kill 1000 murders and 1 innocent man you have 1 innocent man dead, and 1000 murders. If you let them loose you have 1000 innocent people dead. Well with a 7% recidivism rate you could argue we only have 70 innocent people dead. 70 is still greater than one however.
ahahahhahahha oh god you really don't know anything much about prisons do you
Well, I personally believe in ethical calculus but I don't think many people agree with me. It gets downright silly when you start to take it to logical conclusions.
For example, what if you had 100% recidivism rates for murder? Would it then be best to execute everyone you catch, so long as you reach a 1:1 innocent/guilty parity? I know that a 50-50 justice system wouldn't be good enough for me. Or, suppose that we had 0% recidivism for a crime. Should that mean no punishment, your first (and only, I suppose) time is free?
Edit: sorry there, didn't notice the bolding. I was under the impression that Death Row was a better spot than general population, having generally better conditions and not needing to be around a bunch of violent criminals. While the isolation probably does get to you, I'd certainly take it above being in a normal maximum security prison. Accommodations meaning the general state of your life, and less the specific items you get to play with while you're stuck in a concrete and metal box.
They also have mandatory death penalties for drug trafficking. That's not justice, that's a campaign of terror.
I lived there for a couple of years. You know those slips you get in the plane before landing in some countries, boarding passes or whatever (I'm not sure what they're called) that you're supposed to present with your passport at the customs?
Well, the ones that were in use a few years back, when I first went there were like this:
"Death penalty for drug trafficking."
"Welcome to Singapore"
"Please fill the following information blah blah blah"
And yes, it was in bolded red fucking letters.
Singapore is a police state. I'm a bit hesitant to say that it works, but it does seem to. I don't think the same system would function for a bigger country though.
Let's say, hypothetically, that a woman raped a man by forcing him to have an erection and then having vaginal intercourse with him. To me, instinctively, this seems not as bad as a man raping a woman. Why is that? Is it simply because it's not as painful? Is it because the man will enjoy sex more? Is it a result of societal perceptions? A combination of all three?
How would one go about correcting societal perception if it really is the root of the problem (assuming one could magically change the thoughts of everyone). Is the ideal solution something like in Women on the Edge of Time where men and women have become almost identical (to the point of men even breastfeeding)? What about the significance of sex? If we downplay it, it loses some of its appeal and makes it less special, but if we regard it as too sacred that also creates problems.
Sorry if these questions seem dumb/this is not the right place to ask.