I never have understood this...

[KenHigg]

Now of course the're not. That's whay we let them out early so that can be rehab'd or re offend which is the more likely.

I believe the deterent is that prison is so bad they do not want to go back ever.

Bit like military prisons. 2 weeks is a lifetime (I am told)
Len

I've heard that when an amateur crook goes to jail, they are pro by the time they get out...

 

[KenHigg]

I don't kill people, so if killers are lined up against a wall and shot, I don't give a toss (provided there's no doubt they're guilty) - they shouldn't do it. Col

With a little rewording this could be 'W' quote...

I don't kill people, so if killers are lined up against a wall and shot, I don't give a sh_t (provided there's no doubt they're guilty) - they shouldn't do it. W

 

[selenau837]

I don't kill people, so if killers are lined up against a wall and shot, I don't give a toss (provided there's no doubt they're guilty) - they shouldn't do it.


Col

Something we agree on.

 

[lmnop7854]

Ok, they why not use the death penality. For those that can never be sent back to society. To me that is more humane. I would rather die then spen 80 yrs in jail as Bubba's boyfriend.

I think the people in question (ie, the prisoners) may disagree. Not sure if there is a poll on that somewhere, but it would be interesting to know if prisoners would rather be killed, or live out their years in an institution.

I would also have to say that the vast majority of prisoners are not on death row. So the prisons aren't saving much space by killing off the heinous prisoners. You also have the drug dealers and other thugs in there that don't really warrant death. Maybe some of them will be getting out sooner, but I am sure there is someone waiting around the corner to take their place in the prison. That's one reason to not use the death penalty, because as Kraj says, it doesn't save anyone anything. And like Matty says, sounds more like revenge. There is something inherently wrong with revenge.

Lisa

 

[Len Boorman]

Well dang my britches honey child there seems to be agreement across the pond.

Now what size "g" should we use.

L

 

[KenHigg]

'dang my britches honey child' Ok now... That one was just a bit over the edge even for me...

Edit: But I'll still give you 10 points for your willingness to use a 'g'...

 

[Matty]

I don't kill people, so if killers are lined up against a wall and shot, I don't give a toss (provided there's no doubt they're guilty) - they shouldn't do it.
Col

But technically you're paying (via taxes) for the bullet and gun that kills them. I'd rather not have my money pay for something like that.

 

[lmnop7854]

I don't kill people, so if killers are lined up against a wall and shot, I don't give a toss (provided there's no doubt they're guilty) - they shouldn't do it.
Col

Col - where are you going to get the "no doubt"? Remember, there are lawyers involved in determining the guilt or innocence......

I know I wouldn't want to be the one determining guilt beyond doubt.

Lisa

 

[KenHigg]

But technically you're paying (via taxes) for the bullet and gun that kills them. I'd rather not have my money pay for something like that.

Maybe I can loan 'em one... That'd get them off that technicality...

 

[Matty]

Maybe I can loan 'em one... That'd get them off that technicality...

So you have no problem providing the weapon, knowing it'll kill someone?

 

[selenau837]

Well dang my britches honey child there seems to be agreement across the pond.

Now what size "g" should we use.

L

Umm, Len you may need a bit of tutoring on your Southern drawl and speak.

But, yes there does appear to be some agreement. Has Hades frozen over?

 

[selenau837]

But technically you're paying (via taxes) for the bullet and gun that kills them. I'd rather not have my money pay for something like that.

Bullet = $0.49
Gun = $250
Saves Money on Death row = priceless!!!

 

[lmnop7854]

But technically you're paying (via taxes) for the bullet and gun that kills them. I'd rather not have my money pay for something like that.

And it isn't even the money. That is one thing, and then the fact that one can never be sure if the person being executed was truly guilty, and then there is the "playing God" factor, and the revenge issue. Too many variables for my taste.

And so the question becomes, what should we do with our prisoners? My suggestion would be to find out the root cause of the desire (or necessity, or whatever it is called) to commit crimes and put a stop to that. I don't think the prisons are a very good idea, they look too much like a Band-Aid on several very big problems that never get resolved or even looked into.

Ok, yeah, I know, I sound like a bleeding-heart liberal. Well, I yam what I yam......

Lisa

 

[Matty]

Lisa, I think we're in the same boat on this issue. It really isn't the money for me either, it's that the gov't is supposed to represent the people and those representatives are killing on the people's behalf.

I agree with you that tossing people in prisons isn't going to solve the root causes. The crimes committed are largely a symptom of a problem with society in general.

 

[KenHigg]

So you have no problem providing the weapon, knowing it'll kill someone?

Well I do if you put it that way...

 

[dan-cat]

Re: Col's suggestion... it sounds fair on the surface but I'd rather not have a courthouse look like the Colloseum.

LMAO - we could have reenactments of the Iraq war. Replace the tanks with lions and fly in the 'enemy' from Guantanamo Bay.

Note to self: Buy guaniators.com domain name.

 

[selenau837]

If you want an alternative, we can adopt the middle east form of punishment.

If you get caughting stealing, cut their hand off, etc. How is that.

I think Jail is too lax. People have no fear of going to jail. If they took away the TV, the Gyms, libraries, etc. Then jail would be what it is intended for. Punishment.

Make their time there a living hades, by boring them to death, then perhaps they will think twice about the crime they commit.

However, for murders, I am fully on the eye for an eye kick.

 

[KenHigg]

However, for murders, I am fully on the eye for an eye kick.

Do you think if a person kills in a moment of weakness, say they just got real mad, that they could go through some therapy and / or counseling and be trusted not to kill again?

 

[dan-cat]

Personally I think the human race is much too incompetent to be given the moral right to end the life of it's own kind. I mean we even have to rely on the criminal to tell the executioner his job

Let's face it. When it comes to morality, as a species we're crap. Affording ourselves the right over life and death just displays our arrogance, IMHO

 

[selenau837]

Do you think if a person kills in a moment of weakness, say they just got real mad, that they could go through some therapy and / or counseling and be trusted not to kill again?

I am assuming you mean mad as in upset, and not crazy.

As I stated before this is not an black and white issue. For crime of passions, I feel they may be able to be rehabilitated. However serial killers, and out and out murders should be put to death.

Each situation should be weighed. I am not for putting innocent men to death. If they can be rehabilitated, then by all means do it. If not, don't waste space and money by keeping them alive.