It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Killing a person because they killed a person...that is hypocritical...At least from where I am sitting at the moment.
Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
I actually think more people for the most serious crimes should have what T suggests, not just Death row. I think it is complete BS, that here in Mich, some of the prisons have a law library that lawyers actually go and use. I think to many have it to easy in prison, so yeah, I'm all for it.
LOL but I also think we should bring back the chain gangs in this state too.edit on 8-9-2011 by chiefsmom because: sp
Originally posted by retiredTxn
Different scenario...Someone is trying to kill your spouse and child. To protect the life
of an innocent third party, your spouse and child, you pull a handgun and kill the perpetrator.
Hypocritical?
Originally posted by Quadrivium
The only thing I think the OP is trying to decide, is which would help him sleep better at night.
Originally posted by Quadrivium
We each have our own thoughts and opinions on the subject. How do we decide who's right?
Reform by regimen: the penitentiary.
Although various types of institutions had previously existed, the United States is generally credited with—or blamed for, depending on one's perspective!—the invention of the state-administered, modern prison system (Barnes; Eriksson; McKelvey). Before the 1820s and 1830s, prisons as we think of them today did not exist. Local counties operated jails, but these facilities often had the architecture of a house (with the jailer and his family living on the premises) and were used to detain offenders awaiting trial or punishment. Offenders were typically fined, publicly embarrassed by being placed in the pillory, whipped, banished, or executed, but they were not incarcerated for the purpose of punishment or reform. Indeed, the notion that locking up offenders could serve a larger purpose would have struck colonial Americans as odd (Barnes).
Reform by individualized treatment: the new penology and beyond.
Notions of how best to rehabilitate offenders are dynamic, not static. Three decades or so after the penitentiary was initiated, the idea that the internal design and daily regimen of the prison would have transforming powers could no longer be sustained. In the aftermath of the Civil War, prisons began to fill to the brim, rendering obsolete any hopes of bunking inmates in solitary confinement and of maintaining total silence. Beyond such practical limitations, observers believed the penitentiary's blueprint had a fatal flaw: no matter what offenders did
while in prison, they were released when their sentence expired. What self-interest, they wondered, did inmates have to better themselves while under lock and key? It was clear that the earlier theory of reforming offenders was bankrupt.
Reform by corrections.
By the end of the Progressive Era, then, the notion of individualized treatment had emerged as the dominant correctional philosophy and the basic contours of the modern correctional system—probation, parole, juvenile justice, and all the policies and practices they entail—were in place. As Rothman (1980) painfully details, the ideals of effective rehabilitation were infrequently realized. Shortages of knowledge, trained staff, resources, and institutional commitment often resulted in treatment that was poorly delivered or absent altogether. Still, confidence abounded that rehabilitation was possible and, with sufficient support, could be effective.
Researchers make many bold assertions, but most are forgotten or subjected to critical scrutiny; neither occurred in Martinson's case: his research immediately received national attention among academics and the media, and his findings were accepted by most observers as obviously true. A few scholars rose up in opposition, such as Ted Palmer, who demonstrated that nearly half of the treatment programs reviewed by Martinson actually reduced recidivism. But given the tenor of the times, people were ready to hear Martinson's "nothing works" message and unprepared to question empirical findings that reinforced what they already believed. With scientific findings on their side, they now could declare that "rehabilitation was dead."
And by the way Rehabilitation does not work due to the lack of rehabilitation in prison...
Definition of REHABILITATE transitive verb
1 a : to restore to a former capacity : reinstate
b : to restore to good repute : reestablish the good name of
2 a : to restore to a former state (as of efficiency, good management, or solvency)
b : to restore or bring to a condition of health or useful and constructive activity
Originally posted by retiredTxn
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
And by the way Rehabilitation does not work due to the lack of rehabilitation in prison...
Definition of REHABILITATE transitive verb
1 a : to restore to a former capacity : reinstate
b : to restore to good repute : reestablish the good name of
2 a : to restore to a former state (as of efficiency, good management, or solvency)
b : to restore or bring to a condition of health or useful and constructive activity
Source - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
My problem with rehabilitation in prison, is we are assuming an individual can be restored to a previous
state, or be changed into a useful citizen. It will and does work on some folks, but is very difficult with
many. Imagine, if you will, someone who knows nothing but the life of living on the street, or relies on
a gang for their upbringing. Despite all the classes, therapy, and religion they may acquire in prison, the day
they leave prison, they return to that gang, or living under a bridge in a cardboard box.
Happens every day in America. In spite of the good intentions of those who scream for rehabilitation,
there are not enough aftercare programs to provide for these folks. So, is it hypocritical to kill a person
who has killed, and has very little chance of returning to society as a useful member of society, or justified
to kill them and not take the chance they will be a repeat offender?
We as a society may never know the right answer, but until a better one is found, what else should we
do? IMO every answer in this debate only leads to more questions. I wish there was an easy answer.
Originally posted by retiredTxn
My problem with rehabilitation in prison, is we are assuming an individual can be restored to a previous
state, or be changed into a useful citizen.
Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
I have to amend what I posted earlier. I should have added that what I proposed would be the sentence after the appeals process, which opens a whole new can of worms.
There have been trials that have been appealed up to ten times, dragging out the sentence and wasting taxpayers money, all the while making lawyers richer. I think that it should be reduced to at most three.
Also to add to what I earlier proposed is when I said, no reading material, that includes letters (Mail in or out), no Bible, Torah , Qu'ran....anything. And when they passed away, their family and friends would never know and they would be buried in a unmarked grave.edit on 8-9-2011 by TDawgRex because: Just not paying attention to my spelling.
Originally posted by TDawgRex
If the punishment was so, and it may take awhile to take affect people’s thoughts, it may just well make people think twice about committing a crime.
Some people don't care whether they live or die. But I don't think anyone wants to be forgotten and ignored.
Gotta give ya a S&F (if it matters and I rarely say that) as you are making people think and reason their ideas out.
Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
In a sense, the family would know the individual who has been sentenced, is already dead and they can grieve in their own way upon sentencing.
That alone may have a effect on how they raise their children in the future.
Think about it. Many of us do not want to be looked upon as a failure or disappointment to the family. And knowing that you will never have contact of any kind with the exception of your own voice has gotta be hell on earth. The idea of that you are forgotten can be a strong deterrent.
But then, you have nutjobs who just want to get in the history books.
Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
Ahh, gotcha.
I think if you kill someone, whom has murdered innocent people for no reason, in killing them, you are protecting other innocent people. If he were to get out of jail, or maybe even in jail, how many others might he/she kill that you could have prevented?