Rethinking justice?

Do you think we need to rethink the whole concept of 'law and order'?

Most societies are 'law and order' societies, based on the concept of deserts. Rewarding the heroes with medals and cash and honour, and punishing evildoers with suffering, hate and death.

There are a lot of problems with this system in my opinion. For one thing, it's not fair. Law and order, authoritarian societies are almost always more lax and forgiving towards offenders of the upper class, and recognize the merits of lower class people less. If OJ Simpson was poor he would likely be on California's death row now with Scott Peterson, or already executed.

One might argue that we could have a retributive justice system and treat all classes and people equally by it but I would argue that is extremely difficult because both concepts are linked together. This is why, retributive/vengeful justice and classism are connected because they view human beings as moral islands in complete control of their own destiny. Thus we should have sympathy neither for someone on death row or someone in the street alike since it was only their own wickedness or laziness that got them there.

Another thing is it just doesn't f*cking work. There is zero evidence that the death penalty deters murder. All it does is satisfy people's desire for revenge. Hong Kong doesn't have the death penalty and the quite similar city-state of Singapore does, and Hong Kong is not any more dangerous than Singapore.

As for life in prison, well, I think the most dangerous offenders should be kept in some kind of custody for life, whether it's a prison, a colony of sorts, or an asylum for the criminally insane, but the vast majority of murderers and other violent/sexual offenders can be rehabilitated at a fairly low risk. Most murderers do not repeat their crimes and sex offenders can be controlled fairly well if they are monitored. The idea that sex offenders are impossible to reform is not necessarily true and is propagated mostly because people hate them so much that it's what they want to hear. I would say no more than TEN out of a million people are so dangerous that they need to be locked up for the rest of their life.

I think instead of having indoor prisons, we should have island prisons, so the criminals can have fresh air. They should also tend gardens and do other therapeutic things. It shouldn't be seen as a punishment or society's revenge but rather a reformation or at worst, a quarantine. With a high-tech security system, a remote island would be more difficult to escape than a supermax. I think this would make prisoners far more functional when they are released, and the fact is the vast majority of prisoners are eventually released, and we should care about making sure they don't end up worse when they come out, rather than simply focusing on making them suffer.

And imprisoning someone for stealing or any other crime that is not violent is wrong imo. Non-violent crimes should be dealt with by fines and community service. Jail should only be for murder, abuse, torture and assault.

America's justice system is all about payback and it's obviously NOT working, while Canada and many countries in Europe don't even really have life without parole and they are far safer than America is.

I also think way too many things are crimes that shouldn't be. Such as smoking and drinking outside, loitering (annoying sure, but a crime?), etc. If you come to America and aren't familiar with the laws, it's very easy to be arrested and not even know why.

Of course the vengeful and punitive actions towards dealing with crime are always the more popular ones, since people get angry, so switching to a restorative justice system could never be done by popular vote; people will have to have it done to them and then they will likely become convinced of its benefits.

Originally posted by lampsalot
Do you think we need to rethink the whole concept of 'law and order'?

As someone who studies criminal law and absolutely believes the criminal justice system needs an overhaul...

let me address something you said that I disagree with....

*the death penalty as a deterrence. If the death penalty in place prevents even ONE person from committing a crime that receives the death penalty....it works. So yes, the death penalty DOES work as a deterrence. for everyone? no. for some? yes. do all punishments deter all crime? no. for some? yes.

with that said.......I agree with most of what you said.

*there should be alternative sentencing (such as community service, working for charity organizations, cleaning up parks, streets, etc). people react different ways to different forms of punishment/rehabiliation. sitting in a cell is not rehabiliation for all. for some it is. some people sit in jail for the first time and hate it so much, they never committ a crime again. others, it does nothing for them.

*the truly horrible crimes (rape, sexual abuse, pedophiles, murderers) should receive a very harsh sentence. not the death penalty (too easy way out) but probably a hole in the ground and fed bread and water. they should suffer (IMO)

*mandatory education (high school/college) and a hireable trade should be required of every single prisoner along with job placement. after all, if someone with a record cannot obtain a job in order to support himself, he will go back to crime to support himself. whether this comes in the form of benefits to companies or whatever, there needs to be a solid work release program for prisoners.

*violent offenders need to be locked up for a long time AND receive education, trade skills AND counseling. eventually they will be released and they need to know how to cope with the things that make them angry. however, if it is found that a person has psychological issues causing them to be violent, they should NOT be out on the street. if a person is unable to control themselves from being a danger to society, they should not be allowed to be part of society.

*other offenders who commit crimes after crimes (property thefts, burglaries, etc) if they cannot be a contributing member of society and they continue to comitt these crimes, they should not be allowed to be a part of society (see my point above about work and education). they should remain locked up. because clearly freedom is not something they appreciate. clearly the rights of others is not something they appreciate.

sentencing should not always be about punishment but it should be about punishement AND rehabilitation.

right now, our prison system (many privately funded) do not have the funds or manpower in place to do what is needed to be done. so yes, a complete overhaul is needed.

people can change. yet, some people cannot or refuse to change.


[may edit as i think of more....just typing on the fly]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


*the death penalty as a deterrence. If the death penalty in place prevents even ONE person from committing a crime that receives the death penalty....it works. So yes, the death penalty DOES work as a deterrence. for everyone? no. for some? yes. do all punishments deter crime? no. for some? yes.

But who is to say that the death penalty doesn't indirectly CAUSE murder as well because it hardens the hearts of the society that practices it? If the death penalty had a net deterrent effect, it would be clearly demonstrable in statistics, but the fact is that it's not.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


*the truly horrible crimes (rape, sexual abuse, pedophiles, murderers) should receive a very harsh sentence. not the death penalty (too easy way out) but probably a hole in the ground and fed bread and water. they should suffer (IMO)

 

edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

See I think everyone should get a second chance (unless they are absolutely psychotic and irreformable) and that revenge is wrong so I'm just gonna have to disagree there. Anyone who lives a first world life is probably indirectly murdering people in the Third World anyways by the waste that they create and the taxes that they pay that kill innocent children in war, and such, I find it a little bit self righteous to hate those who have committed murder and other heinous crimes and declare them 100% evil.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


*the death penalty as a deterrence. If the death penalty in place prevents even ONE person from committing a crime that receives the death penalty....it works. So yes, the death penalty DOES work as a deterrence. for everyone? no. for some? yes. do all punishments deter crime? no. for some? yes.

But who is to say that the death penalty doesn't indirectly CAUSE murder as well because it hardens the hearts of the society that practices it? If the death penalty had a net deterrent effect, it would be clearly demonstrable in statistics, but the fact is that it's not.

have you ever done research on this? there are statistic out there that shows it does work.

AGAIN, there is not one single punishment that 100% deters ALL crime! and again, if even one person is deterred from murdering another....then it works.

with that said.............as one who always is a forensic major, in order for me to support a death penalty, i want to know there is 100% irrefutable evidence that the person is guilty. thus my reason for being a support of the Innocence Project.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


*the truly horrible crimes (rape, sexual abuse, pedophiles, murderers) should receive a very harsh sentence. not the death penalty (too easy way out) but probably a hole in the ground and fed bread and water. they should suffer (IMO)

 

edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

See I think everyone should get a second chance (unless they are absolutely psychotic and irreformable) and that revenge is wrong so I'm just gonna have to disagree there. Anyone who lives a first world life is probably indirectly murdering people in the Third World anyways by the waste that they create and the taxes that they pay that kill innocent children in war, and such, I find it a little bit self righteous to hate those who have committed murder and other heinous crimes and declare them 100% evil.

For someone to believe that anyone who harms an innocent child deserves to be amongst society or live a normal life ever again is beyond my conprehension. How anyone can feel sympathy for an adult who rapes a child.....or murders an innocent human being is beyond my ability to communicate with or debate with.

There is no evidence found thus far that someone who is a pedophile and sexually abuses children can be fixed.

If one feels the need to kill another innocent person, they should not be allowed to live amongst us. Would you want either of those kind of people living next to you?

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


have you ever done research on this? there are statistic out there that shows it does work.

AGAIN, there is not one single punishment that 100% deters ALL crime! and again, if even one person is deterred from murdering another....then it works.

I have. Yes there are some studies that suggest it works, but there are others, like the Singapore vs Hong Kong study, that suggest the opposite. Unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it deters then I'm skeptical of any claim that it does.

I think the death penalty would work well as a deterrent to say, theft, but as that is absurdly harsh, it's not even worth making it the punishment for theft. I'm sure a few murderers have thought twice because of the death penalty at some point, but it's probably pretty rare because part of the reason people become murderers is because they don't truly understand cause and effect on a deep level, while a simple robber who might generally be a 'good person' would. Any deterrent the death penalty might cause is likely so slight, that it is lower than the number of innocent people who are executed.

I will say if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the death penalty was a high quality deterrent, I would reluctantly switch teams and support its use.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

I find it very righteous to believe that anyone who harms an innocent child deserves to be amongst society or life ever again. How anyone can feel sympathy for an adult who rapes a child.....or murders an innocent human being is beyond my ability to communicate with or debate with.

There is no evidence found thus far that someone who is a pedophile and sexually abuses children can be fixed.

edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

I agree. Those people need to be quickly and humanely put to death. Though I would be the first to admit that if someone abused/molested one on my children there would be nothing humane or quick about their death.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


For someone to believe that anyone who harms an innocent child deserves to be amongst society or live a normal life ever again is beyond my conprehension. How anyone can feel sympathy for an adult who rapes a child.....or murders an innocent human being is beyond my ability to communicate with or debate with.

There is no evidence found thus far that someone who is a pedophile and sexually abuses children can be fixed.

If one feels the need to kill another innocent person, they should not be allowed to live amongst us. Would you want either of those kind of people living next to you?

edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

I just think denying the possibility of redemption categorically is kind of harsh. And I do think people can change. Of course I do think there need to be restrictions on those kind of people and where they can go, what they can do, etc.

I just think it's narrow minded that people think self-righteous hate and revenge are the only answer when it comes to crime.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


have you ever done research on this? there are statistic out there that shows it does work.

AGAIN, there is not one single punishment that 100% deters ALL crime! and again, if even one person is deterred from murdering another....then it works.

I have. Yes there are some studies that suggest it works, but there are others, like the Singapore vs Hong Kong study, that suggest the opposite. Unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it deters then I'm skeptical of any claim that it does.

I think the death penalty would work well as a deterrent to say, theft, but as that is absurdly harsh, it's not even worth making it the punishment for theft. I'm sure a few murderers have thought twice because of the death penalty at some point, but it's probably pretty rare because part of the reason people become murderers is because they don't truly understand cause and effect on a deep level, while a simple robber who might generally be a 'good person' would. Any deterrent the death penalty might cause is likely so slight, that it is lower than the number of innocent people who are executed.

I will say if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the death penalty was a high quality deterrent, I would reluctantly switch teams and support its use.

Can you please name ONE form of punishment (w/ a study to back it up) that deterres ALL crimes, 100%?

Look, some people respond to varies means of punishment while others do not. That is why sentencing/punishment/rehabilitation should be on a case by case basis and not a standard set of law.....

We are a very long way from this....however, you can find stories now and then where judges hand out alternative sentencing....

I know someone whom ive known for over 20 years. The guy cannot be rehabilited. Absolutely no punishment works for him. In 20 years, he racked up 14 felonys and has been in and out of prison for those 20 years.
Eventually one has to ask: what the hell do we do with a person like this? They have no respect for anyone else. They steal from others, hurt others, zero respect for anyone including themselves. Do we allow this person to live amongst all the other people??

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


For someone to believe that anyone who harms an innocent child deserves to be amongst society or live a normal life ever again is beyond my conprehension. How anyone can feel sympathy for an adult who rapes a child.....or murders an innocent human being is beyond my ability to communicate with or debate with.

There is no evidence found thus far that someone who is a pedophile and sexually abuses children can be fixed.

If one feels the need to kill another innocent person, they should not be allowed to live amongst us. Would you want either of those kind of people living next to you?

edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

I just think denying the possibility of redemption categorically is kind of harsh. And I do think people can change. Of course I do think there need to be restrictions on those kind of people and where they can go, what they can do, etc.

I just think it's narrow minded that people think self-righteous hate and revenge are the only answer when it comes to crime.

edit on 8-2-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)

You read absolutely nothing I typed...for if you did, you would not have answered this way.

There are studies that seem to demonstrate a decrease in murder rates after executions.

deathpenalty.procon.org...

The difficult part is making sure that an innocent person is not being put to death as noted in a previous post

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by greeneyedleo


have you ever done research on this? there are statistic out there that shows it does work.

AGAIN, there is not one single punishment that 100% deters ALL crime! and again, if even one person is deterred from murdering another....then it works.

I have. Yes there are some studies that suggest it works, but there are others, like the Singapore vs Hong Kong study, that suggest the opposite. Unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it deters then I'm skeptical of any claim that it does.

I think the death penalty would work well as a deterrent to say, theft, but as that is absurdly harsh, it's not even worth making it the punishment for theft. I'm sure a few murderers have thought twice because of the death penalty at some point, but it's probably pretty rare because part of the reason people become murderers is because they don't truly understand cause and effect on a deep level, while a simple robber who might generally be a 'good person' would. Any deterrent the death penalty might cause is likely so slight, that it is lower than the number of innocent people who are executed.

I will say if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the death penalty was a high quality deterrent, I would reluctantly switch teams and support its use.

Can you please name ONE form of punishment (w/ a study to back it up) that deterres ALL crimes, 100%?

Look, some people respond to varies means of punishment while others do not. That is why sentencing/punishment/rehabilitation should be on a case by case basis and not a standard set of law.....

We are a very long way from this....however, you can find stories now and then where judges hand out alternative sentencing....

I know someone whom ive known for over 20 years. The guy cannot be rehabilited. Absolutely no punishment works for him. In 20 years, he racked up 14 felonys and has been in and out of prison for those 20 years.
Eventually one has to ask: what the hell do we do with a person like this? They have no respect for anyone else. They steal from others, hurt others, zero respect for anyone including themselves. Do we allow this person to live amongst all the other people??

Someone like him should be in an asylum for the criminally insane, imo. For life or until a jury can collectively decide that he has changed.

I'm just saying that the death penalty does not work. Deterrence mostly is effective with minor crimes. I mean, I don't doubt the reason there isn't a lot of theft in Saudi Arabia is because they chop people's hands off, because a lot of decent people have stolen something at least once in their life, probably pretty much everyone.

Prison sentences seem to be at least as effective as death when it comes to deterrence, though honestly I think both have near-zero value because people who murder tend to not understand consequence. So why not just choose prison instead? Most murderers do not re-offend, and some studies suggest that most rapists and child molesters do not re-offend after being caught either, so I wouldn't say any category of criminal is completely beyond redemption.

Originally posted by davidchin
There are studies that seem to demonstrate a decrease in murder rates after executions.

deathpenalty.procon.org...

The difficult part is making sure that an innocent person is not being put to death as noted in a previous post

That study used a lot of really fancy statistical analysis, I am not really sure that I trust it. Even though the people who did it actually oppose the death penalty.

You read absolutely nothing I typed...for if you did, you would not have answered this way.

I read everything you said. I know that some crimes are really disgusting and it's often hard to see them as human anymore, but justice imo should not be ruled by our emotions.

You read absolutely nothing I typed...for if you did, you would not have answered this way.

I read everything you said. I know that some crimes are really disgusting and it's often hard to see them as human anymore, but justice imo should not be ruled by our emotions.

Originally posted by greeneyedleoThey have no respect for anyone else. They steal from others, hurt others, zero respect for anyone including themselves. Do we allow this person to live amongst all the other people??

Sure.

If people took defense of themselves and their property more seriously guys like that wouldnt be a problem for long. Sooner or later he'll climb through the wrong window or assault the wrong bystander and be hauled away in a bag.

Surefire reduction of recidivism and a guaranteed deterrent is a public who is willing to meet their assailant with deadly force in real-time.

It's really the best way to accomplish everyones goal. Fewer in prison. No money/time wasted on repeat offenders. Virtually eliminates the shortcomings of trials and juries which have and can release the guilty or convict the innocent.

Ending prohibition will also go a long way to bringing some sanity to the "justice" system.

A freer people will result in better "justice."

What we do now makes no sense whatsoever. Infringe a copyright and get 10 years. Rape a child and get 5. Download a picture and get 10. Grow a plant and get 5. It doesnt make any sense and it seems like the popular idea to bring sense to the system is to just send everyone who ever did anything away for 100 years.

You say if the death penalty deterred one murder it would be worth it. Well, what of the victimless or small-time criminals who get sent away and warped so badly by prison they come out harder, meaner, unable to find work or housing and take the bad behavior up a notch or two. If somewhere some kid was deterred by the threat of prison is the manufacture of harder criminals en masse worth it?

I knew this thread would fall on deaf ears on this
very right-wing message board.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by greeneyedleoThey have no respect for anyone else. They steal from others, hurt others, zero respect for anyone including themselves. Do we allow this person to live amongst all the other people??

Sure.

If people took defense of themselves and their property more seriously guys like that wouldnt be a problem for long. Sooner or later he'll climb through the wrong window or assault the wrong bystander and be hauled away in a bag.

Surefire reduction of recidivism and a guaranteed deterrent is a public who is willing to meet their assailant with deadly force in real-time.

It's really the best way to accomplish everyones goal. Fewer in prison. No money/time wasted on repeat offenders. Virtually eliminates the shortcomings of trials and juries which have and can release the guilty or convict the innocent.

Ending prohibition will also go a long way to bringing some sanity to the "justice" system.

A freer people will result in better "justice."

What we do now makes no sense whatsoever. Infringe a copyright and get 10 years. Rape a child and get 5. Download a picture and get 10. Grow a plant and get 5. It doesnt make any sense and it seems like the popular idea to bring sense to the system is to just send everyone who ever did anything away for 100 years.

You say if the death penalty deterred one murder it would be worth it. Well, what of the victimless or small-time criminals who get sent away and warped so badly by prison they come out harder, meaner, unable to find work or housing and take the bad behavior up a notch or two. If somewhere some kid was deterred by the threat of prison is the manufacture of harder criminals en masse worth it?

did you read what i wrote? did you not read that i support alternative means of punishment/rehabilitation and that i dont believe locking everyone up is for everyone? did you read that i said the CJ system needs an overhaul? im guessing not.....

and im all about protecting oneself. i live in a CCW and castle law state....