If a sentence is for life and they commit suicide they've served their sentence. I'm quote content to let any killer escape that way.
If a sentence is for life and they commit suicide they've served their sentence. I'm quote content to let any killer escape that way.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Neither you nor Lewk specified that you were referring only to prisoners serving "whole life" sentences. Furthermore, a life sentence is for life in prison, not "for as long as you wish". Moreover, some people are sentenced to a minimum number of years in prison regardless of the duration of their "life" sentence.
Wrt the punishment aspect, a prisoner who commits suicide receives either a disproportionately harsh punishment to which he WASN'T sentenced, or a disproportionately lenient sentence far better than that to which he was sentenced. That is not just. It's even worse if a wrongfully convicted person is driven to commit suicide while in prison. Or have you decided to support capital punishment now?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
But why?
This is what I'm thinking: I can think of three motivations underlying imprisonment for a serial murderer type criminal: First to protect the rest of society from further harm, Second as a punishment for the crime itself and Third as a deterrent to other would-be criminals. If insanity is behind the serial killer's crimes and that insanity is later cured, then what of the three motivations underlies continued imprisonment? Not the first, of course. As for the second, is it just to punish someone for something they did while insane? And for the third, deterrence really doesn't apply for crazy murderers, does it? Heck, just from a purely cost perspective, why not release the criminal?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
A life sentence is (or should be) a sentence that you will spend the rest of your life in prison and will never be released. We will keep you incarcerated until you die. If they want to bring that death forwards fine, it just further guarantees that no BS about releasing them instead will happen. It ensures if anything that the sentence is served.
The sentence does not define how long the "life" is. If they want it to be 1 day and commit suicide on their first night in prison I'm fine with that. That should be their right, so long as we have the right not to have them ever released.
What garbage. Does a patient who gets cancer or has a heart attack from the stress or any other cause of premature death have a disproportionately harsh or lenient sentence? No. Life is not a term of time, it is (or ought to be) a term of until you die whenever that may happen to be.Wrt the punishment aspect, a prisoner who commits suicide receives either a disproportionately harsh punishment to which he WASN'T sentenced, or a disproportionately lenient sentence far better than that to which he was sentenced. That is not just. It's even worse if a wrongfully convicted person is driven to commit suicide while in prison. Or have you decided to support capital punishment now?
I have no objection to capital punishment if we could guarantee the innocent who don't want to die are not sentenced that way. I view suicide as the best of all worlds, a voluntary system of capital punishment. Great. If anything, I'd be open to the idea of allowing euthanasia for convicted prisoners. I'm OK for euthanasia for the terminally sick so I see no reason why those terminally imprisoned shouldn't have the option of euthanasia either.
Yes it is just to punish someone.
There is an insanity plea that can be made in the court of law. If that plea did not succeed then the sentence is punishment and remains valid.
And the innocent who want to die because they're being severely abused in prison where they are for a crime they did not commit?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Let's just kill every murderer who confesses to the crime.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Being incarcerated != Abused. Furthermore if they wish to, fine. I respect their wishes.And the innocent who want to die because they're being severely abused in prison where they are for a crime they did not commit?
If you want, I'm not keen on it but I'm not violently opposed either.
I'd rather that than release them back on the streets as we're currently doing. Anne White would still be alive today if we did that.
In theory, but not in practice, at least from what I understand concerning UK and US prisons. Crowding, gangs, etc. Even the kid who got locked up over a LoL joke got beat up in prison. and Cali is fighting a case right now about how the courts have ruled its overcrowding is abuse.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Oh you strange person. It's absurd to talk about respecting "wishes" that are born out of unnecessary suffering and despair that you've caused and can stop causing. Of course being incarcerated amounts to abuse, certainly if it involves beatings, harrassment, rape or solitary confinement. Would you like to be incarcerated in a maximum-security American prison if you were innocent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confessionIf you want, I'm not keen on it but I'm not violently opposed either.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why...e-confessions/
http://listverse.com/2013/05/22/10-c...e-confessions/
I have long suspected that the "we can't be sure" defense is completely phony
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
AynRandBlade has never really existed in the real world. He doesn't acknowledge its existence.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
We've not caused such suffering, the guilty have brought it on.
For the first half we've not caused any of that. None of that should be state-sanctioned and if guilty prisoners are doing it then that's their fault not ours. Or if it is our fault by sending nearly-exclusively guilty people in to such an environment then it is even more our fault if we release such an environment onto the innocent in our streets. You're making my argument for me, the sorts of people doing that shouldn't be released.Of course being incarcerated amounts to abuse, certainly if it involves beatings, harrassment, rape or solitary confinement.
As for the solitary confinement, again AFAIK that's used as a punishment in prison for breaking the rules there. But it also sounds like an excellent way to prevent your other complaints. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
No. But at least I would only be there after going through the criminal justice system. I would even less like to have the maximum security American prisoners released onto the streets next to me and have no protection before anything. So overall I wish we had the American-style max security system here yes.Would you like to be incarcerated in a maximum-security American prison if you were innocent?
Hence why I said I oppose it. But its a lesser evil (that I oppose) to releasing said prisoners (that I oppose even more).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession
http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why...e-confessions/
http://listverse.com/2013/05/22/10-c...e-confessions/
I have long suspected that the "we can't be sure" defense is completely phony
I don't live in the real world? Sure I do, I live in the gritty real world and not some make believe cotton candy and lollipops world that you seem to wish for.
Since you're so concerned about the well-being of innocents potentially incarcerated why don't we compare the two side-by-side.
1a: How many innocents do you think get murdered by convicted criminals in prison?
1b: How many innocents do you think get murdered by convicted criminals not in prison?
2a: How many innocents do you think get raped by convicted criminals in prison?
2b: How many innocents do you think get raped by convicted criminals not in prison?
3a: How many innocents do you think get assaulted by convicted criminals in prison?
3b: How many innocents do you think get assaulted by convicted criminals not in prison?
4a: How many innocents do you think get robbed by convicted criminals in prison?
4b: How many innocents do you think get robbed by convicted criminals not in prison.
I'm sure it'd be possible to get some data and/or make an estimate. Here in the real world I personally fall under none of the a categories, never once been harmed in prison or by someone in prison. I have however been both assaulted by a convicted criminal and years later robbed by a convicted criminal. Both by people who'd be incarcerated for life and thus unable to have commited those crimes if we had a three-strikes-you're-out law that I wholeheartedly support.
Do you mean like the Andrea Yates case, where a psychotic break led to murdering her children? Wouldn't that "cure" for psychosis have to be more than just managing it with meds, and be some kind of structural or DNA change with permanence? Otherwise it'd just be like today's treatments that still require monitoring, 'tracking', interventions -- to prevent non-compliance, relapses, and criminal recidivism.
We tried lobotomies, forced sterilization and ECT, in the past...downright barbaric by modern ethical standards. We can use chemical castration for pedophiles today, but it's reversible, and controversial. It's even controversial to force-medicate criminals who were too psychotic to participate in their defense, when that medication makes them 'sane' enough to stand trial.
A lot of ethical issues surround the idea of "fixing" the biopsychology of a person. First, the legal system defines "criminal behavior" using different standards and definitions than the medical community. Second, by numbers, there aren't many serial killers (and they're mostly sociopaths, not psychopaths).
More importantly, our current systems work in opposition to one another. ie public health, education, and economic deficits flow to police, courts, jails and prisons. IMO, fixing that revolving door is the better alternative.
(That was a reply to Choobs)
Are you seriously trying to build a case on 'innocent' vs 'not-innocent' rape victims ?
You condone rape as an intrinsic part of prison terms ?
Congratulations America
No I don't. I never once asked about innocent versus non-innocent, I asked about innocent in-prison, versus innocent: the vs was the prison/out of prison. Furthermore I have said I abhor and oppose rape and therefore rapists need to be kept isolated out of society and if need be isolated in solitary confinement in prison to protect other prisoners and guards.
But Minx and OG seem to be arguing that rapists being in prison means that rapists need to be released from prison onto the streets to prevent prisoners from rape which is a bit
Rand, yer even losing me on this...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
On which point? The idea I ever condoned rape is offensive and I've just clarified I never did such a thing.
I'm wondering here what people exactly want to do with rapists? Seems to me there's 4 options:
1: Execute them - no risk at all of future rapes
2: Imprison in solitary confinement - minimal risk of raping again, maximum supervision.
3: Imprison communally - risk of them raping fellow prisoners, though will be under supervision.
4: Release into the public - highest risk of them raping the public, no supervision.
I oppose 1 & 4. I dislike 3 and 2 but view them as the lesser of necessary evils. I think 2 is appropriate if they're viewed as likely to rape fellow prisoners, because we should try and prevent that. Though supervision should try and prevent it too. But apparently solitary confinement is abuse into itself so not sure what exactly we're supposed to do!? The idea that rapists may rape hardened criminals is not a reason to release those rapists into the public to rape defenceless innocent people though. Prisons are normally segregated by gender too which makes it harder to rape (men can defend themselves better and women rarely rape). The public are not segregaged by gender.
Try to keep up. We're talking about the innocent who've been sentenced to prison. If you imprison an innocent person, you (or society) are the proximal cause of that person's imprisonment and the attendant suffering. If you sentence an innocent person to decades in prison you are the immediate cause of the suffering caused by that imprisonment. If you deny a person a review of his case every few decades you are the immediate cause of the despair that comes with that hopelessness. It's all on you.
Keep up, we're talking about innocent people, and you're responsible for putting them in harm's way. You're also responsible for the abuse constituted by the incarceration itself. I asked you if you'd want to be incarcerated if you were innocent. Would you? How 'bout if I promise you (For the first half we've not caused any of that. None of that should be state-sanctioned and if guilty prisoners are doing it then that's their fault not ours. Or if it is our fault by sending nearly-exclusively guilty people in to such an environment then it is even more our fault if we release such an environment onto the innocent in our streets. You're making my argument for me, the sorts of people doing that shouldn't be released.
Sure, and it's also an excellent way to destroy a person's psycheAs for the solitary confinement, again AFAIK that's used as a punishment in prison for breaking the rules there. But it also sounds like an excellent way to prevent your other complaints.
Okay it's nice to know you believe you'd prefer to be in prison than to live--as you actually do--in a world where the kind of people you find in maximum security prisons are also out and about in societyNo. But at least I would only be there after going through the criminal justice system. I would even less like to have the maximum security American prisoners released onto the streets next to me and have no protection before anything. So overall I wish we had the American-style max security system here yes.
No, you said you either support it or aren't opposed to it. You support the killing of innocent people, you just tack on some nonsense about "respecting" their "wishes" in cases where they don't confess and want to die as a consequence of prolonged psychological and probably also physical suffering... and you apparently don't really have a problem in principle with those who confess despite being innocent, because you don't oppose killing people who confess.Hence why I said I oppose it.
You may have gotten lost during this little digression but my point isn't that I want some sort of cotton candy world where all prisoners are released out into society as perfectly rehabilitated model citizens. My point is that I don't believe in your fantasy-world where it's meaningful to both 1. "respect" the "wishes" of prisoners by letting or even helping them die AND 2. yammer on about how you don't support capital punishment because you "can't be sure". I find your lollipops salty and full of liquorice.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Alright you fucking asshole. Please explain how you got this idea from my single post in this thread about real world prisons. Even if you try to extend this beyond this thread I've never addressed rapists. At most I've had a rather consistent opinion that our jails do not work in their current setup and we need to focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment/vengence.But Minx and OG seem to be arguing that rapists being in prison means that rapists need to be released from prison onto the streets to prevent prisoners from rape which is a bit
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
He didn't. He's trying some sort of reductio ad abstrawdom. It's all confusion.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Bullshit. The cause of the suffering is a multitude including the person who actually commited the crime for which the innocent was sentenced. By releasing prisoners you increase the amounts of crimes commited and therefore increase the amount of innocents at risk - well done (!)Try to keep up. We're talking about the innocent who've been sentenced to prison. If you imprison an innocent person, you (or society
Furthermore neither I nor anyone else ever on this forum that I know of, nor any democratic nation anywhere in the western world denies the convicted an appeals process. So what this decades is about is beyond me. I support having a prompt and well organised appeals procedure.
No I wouldn't want to be wrongly convicted. Hence the need for a beyond a reasonable doubt trial system with appeals processes. There is a risk of flaws to every system.Keep up, we're talking about innocent people, and you're responsible for putting them in harm's way. You're also responsible for the abuse constituted by the incarceration itself. I asked you if you'd want to be incarcerated if you were innocent. Would you? How 'bout if I promise you (
As I said damned if we do, damned if we don't. If someone is abusing fellow inmates then better that their psyche is damaged during punishment than that abuse is allowed to continue unhindered.Sure, and it's also an excellent way to destroy a person's psyche
Yes and? Your alternative is?Okay it's nice to know you believe you'd prefer to be in prison than to live--as you actually do--in a world where the kind of people you find in maximum security prisons are also out and about in society
Sorry to tell you but shit happens. Find some evidence that wrongly convicted people are a major problem and that they're not having a chance to successfully appeal - and then compare that to the Opportunity Cost of any alternative.
We should do everything we can to ensure the innocent aren't convicted and that if they are they are released on appeal.
That's not what I said. Let me repeat it categorically with no caveats: I oppose the death penalty. I oppose releasing killers onto the streets to kill again even more than I oppose the death penalty.No, you said you either support it or aren't opposed to it. You support the killing of innocent people, you just tack on some nonsense about "respecting" their "wishes" in cases where they don't confess and want to die as a consequence of prolonged psychological and probably also physical suffering... and you apparently don't really have a problem in principle with those who confess despite being innocent, because you don't oppose killing people who confess.
Incarceration works. There is no better alternative.
Rand, I wasn't talking about criminals having life sentences. That can be an appropriate sentence, depending on their crime. I was speaking toward the injustice of Solitary Confinement as an institutional punishment. That's extra-jurisditial, with possible unconstitutional violations of human/civil rights.
Should convicted prisoners be forced to serve life terms that include torture, or cruel and unusual punishments?
I think that's a very different discussion than this nonsense EU ruling that all life-sentence incarceration is a violation of human rights.
Which pretty much is exactly the opposite from what they said. What they say can be summed up as; society can't lock someone up, throw away the keys and forget about it.
Congratulations America
Read! In the name of your lord, who created
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So you can't give closure to the victims families knowing that they're sentenced for life? Instead the families know that while their loved ones are all brutally murdered the "human rights" of the killers mean there must be a parole review after 25 years. Which is not very long at all for a so-called life sentence. Nobody has any issues with appelate courts etc reviewing the case that already happens but we should be able to forget about parole reviews for some people. That is their punishment and you're abolishing that punishment. Please give one reason why Vinter should get a parole review.
Other types of reviews (appeals if the facts are wrong) etc are not an issue. But parole reviews goes against the very sentence he got.
So let met digest this one; the legal system should be ruled by the desires of the families of murder victims? I am not going to comment on any specific case as we are talking about the justice of a system, nothing else.
Congratulations America
Ruled by exclusively? No.
Should they be taken into account significantly? Yes.
Sentencing the likes of these 49 worst-case offenders to life in prison without parole is the justice these families deserve. Giving the option of parole denies that justice and serves no just purpose for the punishment they deserve and have been sentenced for, for the crimes they're guilty of. I again ask for a reason why these serial murderers deserve a parole hearing? Why should the victims be tormented by it?
I am not and have never claimed to be a lawyer and I am even less familiar with the EU legal system but. . . I do find it odd/hard to understand how it is a violation of human rights to not have guaranteed judicial commutation hearings. I am aware that commutation (indeed, clemency of almost any kind, though not parole) has been primarily judicial in the UK for some time, but are there no countries in the EU that primarily exercise that power via a different branch of government?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote