What would be the best way to punish criminals?

[SpellAndShield]

It should be pointed out that incarnation is relatively a new concept, prior to that a prison was just a holding cell until trial..usually death, ransom or freedom.

 

Uhm, how is incarnation related to punishing criminals? Do you mean that if they repent they will be (re)incarnated as something good? :unsure:

[Aurielius]

It should be pointed out that incarnation is relatively a new concept, prior to that a prison was just a holding cell until trial..usually death, ransom or freedom.

 

Uhm, how is incarnation related to punishing criminals? Do you mean that if they repent they will be (re)incarnated as something good? :unsure:

@Stardusk

You might be under some misconception about my views on criminal punishment. I have nothing against the 'Three Strikes' concept for habitual criminals, hard time should be hard time and in certain instances when the proof is incontestable,the death penalty ( but after a fair trial and when the appellate process is finished). Just not ready to sweep aside 1000 yrs of Anglo American legal precedents in relation to criminal procedure, it took a long time to build in the safeguards which protect you and me also.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

It should be pointed out that incarnation is relatively a new concept, prior to that a prison was just a holding cell until trial..usually death, ransom or freedom.

Interesting point in case.

 

I think the Dragons are Flying because the title of the thread is what would be the best way to punish criminals..it is not, what is the best way to rehabilitate them.

 

This perhaps shows how we have merged concepts in our minds that we take for granted, but which are in fact entirely different things. Punishment is punishment, dealing back something of what was dealt out to begin with. Rehabilitation is an entirely different matter. One does not imply the other.

 

Of course the prison system does what it does. It's doing exactly what it's set up to do. It's not set up to rehabilitate people, really. It's set up to take people away, for a little while or longer, and any punishment comes from either activity done by other inmates inside the prison (usually) or passively from the fact that one is isolated from society (kind of ironic, since a person who commits crimes is already isolated from society on other perhaps more fundamental levels).

What if someone believes that you shouldn't punish criminals?

 

It went more to the line of "what should we do with the prison system" and "should criminals be treated the same way" since some people don't think punishment is the best thing to do with them.

 

Either way the title seems to mean "punish" as "what should we do with them."

 

I could be wrong though.

That's exactly my point. Concepts get mixed up very easily in the modern world. Sifting through the differences between concepts (punish and rehabilitate and what to do with them) in the mind can take some effort as this garbling of identity is often done on purpose. That said, it gets very difficult to accomplish anything. You can't see far in muddy waters.

 

Prison is often seen and touted as the first two of those perhaps done through the third. Of course it's a grand failure, as what is it, most (?) criminals just return to jail, they aren't hardly ever rehabilitated, and any job they are put to could most likely easily be done with machinery more effectively. Saying that giving them a stupid job is punishment or rehabilitation or effectively making use of them is equal to saying that everybody else that has an equal stupid job has that part of a prison sentence (which, effectively, might be true).

 

And anybody that doesn't want to punish criminals is showing rather anti-social behavior, as strange as that might sound, for people all around the world throughout all time want to punish criminals for going against the tribe. I think a lot of lofty attitudes can be taken only when someone's feet are off the ground. It's similar to pacifists who hate the very military who in the western world protect their freedom of speech and allow them the golden opportunity to be pacifists to begin with.

[marharth]

It should be pointed out that incarnation is relatively a new concept, prior to that a prison was just a holding cell until trial..usually death, ransom or freedom.

Interesting point in case.

 

I think the Dragons are Flying because the title of the thread is what would be the best way to punish criminals..it is not, what is the best way to rehabilitate them.

 

This perhaps shows how we have merged concepts in our minds that we take for granted, but which are in fact entirely different things. Punishment is punishment, dealing back something of what was dealt out to begin with. Rehabilitation is an entirely different matter. One does not imply the other.

 

Of course the prison system does what it does. It's doing exactly what it's set up to do. It's not set up to rehabilitate people, really. It's set up to take people away, for a little while or longer, and any punishment comes from either activity done by other inmates inside the prison (usually) or passively from the fact that one is isolated from society (kind of ironic, since a person who commits crimes is already isolated from society on other perhaps more fundamental levels).

What if someone believes that you shouldn't punish criminals?

 

It went more to the line of "what should we do with the prison system" and "should criminals be treated the same way" since some people don't think punishment is the best thing to do with them.

 

Either way the title seems to mean "punish" as "what should we do with them."

 

I could be wrong though.

That's exactly my point. Concepts get mixed up very easily in the modern world. Sifting through the differences between concepts (punish and rehabilitate and what to do with them) in the mind can take some effort as this garbling of identity is often done on purpose. That said, it gets very difficult to accomplish anything. You can't see far in muddy waters.

 

Prison is often seen and touted as the first two of those perhaps done through the third. Of course it's a grand failure, as what is it, most (?) criminals just return to jail, they aren't hardly ever rehabilitated, and any job they are put to could most likely easily be done with machinery more effectively. Saying that giving them a stupid job is punishment or rehabilitation or effectively making use of them is equal to saying that everybody else that has an equal stupid job has that part of a prison sentence (which, effectively, might be true).

 

And anybody that doesn't want to punish criminals is showing rather anti-social behavior, as strange as that might sound, for people all around the world throughout all time want to punish criminals for going against the tribe. I think a lot of lofty attitudes can be taken only when someone's feet are off the ground. It's similar to pacifists who hate the very military who in the western world protect their freedom of speech and allow them the golden opportunity to be pacifists to begin with.

Would you consider it a good or a bad thing to attack someone for going against the tribe?

[juderodney]

As a point of order, the word is NOT 'incarnation'. It's 'incarceration'. That, Aurelius is what caused the confusion.

 

As for criminal punishment, I'm one of those guys who believe that rapists and murderers should be given the death penalty. Frauds and others who swindle unsuspecting people of their money should repay ALL of the money they stole back, even if that means menial labor.

 

All in all the idea of punishment is to ensure that the perpetrator does not commit another crime for fear of more punishment. Now I'm not talking about crimes of desperation, like the need for food, clothing, etc., but those who think of other people as prey who should give their stuff up because the jerk wants it.

Edited February 18, 2011 by juderodney

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Would you consider it a good or a bad thing to attack someone for going against the tribe?

From my own point of view, it depends on if the person was right for going against the grain. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/wink.gif

 

Bit I am a very bad example for your question, as I myself am by society's standards, very anti-social. it's not that I hate society or anything. It is, if you think about it, the culmination of all that we as a race have done and testament to the fact that we haven't murdered all of ourselves off.

 

However, I spent a large part of my childhood with trees and streams as friends more so than other children, and whereas it has given me great advantages for what I am (+1strength, +1endurance,+2 perception, +2 agility plus numerous survival perks and spell-like abilities), it has also left me distant from the pack (-20 speechcraft, -10 barter, perk: *provokes strong reactions in others one way or another*).

 

So, I see your point, and I understand that I myself might be the one hunted down for my views and/or practices. It's a survival mechanism, that attitude of attacking anyone who goes against the grain, because it's a basic play-it-by-the-numbers game. Generally, it is right. However, that is also how one misses out on the Tesla's and the Musashi's and the Giordano Bruno's, who was burned at the stake here in Rome in 1600 by the inquisition for going against the Copernican model and saying that the stars in the sky were identical in nature to our sun. Now, they've put up a statue of him on the stop where they burned him for the magician that he was.

http://i1176.photobucket.com/albums/x329/WizardOfAtlantis/Bruno.jpg

[DariusMoranda]

Aurelius, my friend, neither was I, until I saw the worst of what humanity can propose.

 

And, you know, I didn't feel hatred towards those who can do that kind of things, it was just emptiness, nothing else, no wish for revenge.

 

I've read numerous times, comments like 'That guy raped women, I'd cut him slowly in pieces' etc. No. If we do that stuff, we are worst then them. o torture, no torment, just a simple fast removal.

 

And what I've already said in that previous thread about the death penalty, I will say it again.

 

Neither one man deserves death, no one deserves it, neither those worst animals which are able to kill in a gruesome way for pure amusement.

 

Actually, instead of deserving it, they EARN it. They earn their death through their actions.

 

And for them , someone like Iron Felix http://www.topnews.in/files/dzerzhinsky.jpg would be an excellent cure. Tough, tight, merciless, but righteous and balanced. The world of crime is like a dirty boxer, has many tricks in the sleeves and will use sucker punches in order to advance and prosper, or even to win, and that would be a disastrous thing to allow.

 

How to deal with a dirty fighter. Gather your strength , focus and organize your tactic and strategy and hit him with an iron fist, right up the chin, getting him floored permanently.

 

Moranda

[marharth]

Stop talking about the death penalty people, there is a entire topic for that elsewhere.

 

Anyone who thinks every criminal should get the death penalty is mentally insane.

[ginnyfizz]

There is no need to be so darned rude, marharth.

 

I would be in favour of the death penalty for incontrovertibly proven cases of murder where there are absolutely no mitigating circumstances, and am at something of a loss as to why Phoney Blair abolished it for High Treason (you could murder the Sovereign or the Government and yes, it has been tried, and receive a sentence no worse than an armed robber) and Piracy (might make those Somali pirates think twice.

 

All the same, Darius, I find the idea that anyone could even contemplate preferring the modus operandi of Felix Dherzhinsky and his equally vile successors to the thousand years of developed judicial process to which Aurelius refers, profoundly disturbing. I would say I would like to see you say that to my uncle who spent years in Siberia for a crime he didn't commit, except that he drank himself to death, unable to forget the terrible experience. You advocate the kind of totalitarian, police state that is one of the main reasons for the current uprisings in the Middle East (see another thread.)

[WizardOfAtlantis]

"We represent in ourselves organized terror -- this must be said very clearly."

Those are the words of Dzerzhinsky himself. He was a madman and a free-handed murderer of intellectuals, political dissidents, and priests.