This is a rather touchy subject. I am for forced labor and death penalties but then you have to thino of the potential collateral consequences. As there are more and more private prisons that put inmates to use through cheap labor it gives the prison owners incentive to increase the sentence of punishable offenses and what was a three months prison sentence is now three years. With capitol punishment there is always the problem of a falsely accused person. There are multiple cases of falsely accused committed inmates who have been on death row and several who were executed for a crime they did not commit. What aught to be done is to make prisons self sufficient facilities as they once were. Rather than profitting off of the labor force use them to support their own incarceration. It would relieve the monetary burden on the tax payer and avoid the incentive to use them for profit.
- Private prisons can be eliminated, since they could indeed be a problem. Trying to make profit out of forced labor could create a rather powerful lobby which would be able to affect the legislation process. But nobody said that they can't be kept in bay or even delegalized. In my opinion, such serious matters should be handled by the government and administration, since one of the advantages of state institutions is that they don't provide opportunities to focus the market in hands of one person/group of lobbyists.
- As for wrongly accused people: It's true, BUT the problem doesn't depend on the severeness of punishment, or even any part of it. Many people are wrongly accused nowadays, and the numbers won't go up along with the changes. It's completely other thing. And saying that killing innocent men is immoral- so is putting them on a life sentence.
The punishment for murder should be execution, plain and simple. To allow a murderer to live is to risk the chance that they will murder again, and any chance at all is unacceptable. It's really less about punishment, and more about prevention. When a dog gets rabies, we put them down without a second thought, because it's just the responsible thing to do.
Life imprisonment is bunk, because it's really just a much slower and less efficient form of the death penalty, and it runs the risk of them getting parole sometime down the road. The real problem is that our system of capital punishment is too slow and inefficient. Murderers get too many appeals, and the buearacracy of the courts prolong the process and make it much more expensive than it should be. If a murderer is caught, tried, and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't think more than one appeal is necessary. Even when they're finally put on death row, it sometimes takes years to finally execute them. I don't see why we couldn't just do it the very same day of the trial.
I'm in favor of prison reform, actually, into a rehabilitative system. Depending on the nature and motive of the murder, it may be necessary for people's safety that the murderer is locked up for life, but the goal should always be to move forward. You can't move forward with a retributive system such as capital punishment. Moving forward requires helping criminals become law-abiding well-adjusted citizens, if possible, and having them make reparations for their crimes as best as can be done. In the case of a murderer locked up for life, s/he should be working (from within the facility) for money to cover the expenses incurred by the death of the victim, including care for dependents if any. The only exception to this I can really think of that could possibly justify capital punishment would be if a really dangerous person (mass murderer) not only failed reform but kept getting out, particularly by manipulating other people, because then we're talking about a threat to society that can't be contained.
In the end it has to be the forfeiting of his/her life. Why should thousands of $ be spent on keeping a murderer alive? It's just a pity there is no space on this planet to send people into exile as they did in the olden days. We had to either execute them or keep them for years in comparative luxury compared to people who have not done any wrong. This is why God does not exist in my eyes...
What's too inhumane though? Suppose we have a man with a long history of kidnap, sexual assault, burglaries, and other less serious crimes who, as the final act that has him sentenced to death, breaks into a house during a girls' slumber party, kidnaps one of them at knifepoint, and then rapes and murders her.
Why does he deserve only a painless death? Why would inflicting pain on him be "too inhumane", when there's no doubt at all of his guilt?
I was actually thinking of letting him live in constant pain or agony for the rest of his life when I wrote that. Because honestly, that would be the only thing worse than death. Sure, you could try and give him a painful death, but then he's got death to look forward to. The pain would be fairly short lived, and eventually end, whereas living in agony would make one wish for death, with no guarantee that it would happen in a timely manner.
Which brings the question, would we honestly be willing to stoop to the criminal's level for "justice sake? At what point does justice give way to vengeance?
What is "stooping to the criminal's level"? Our normal incarceration process would be the same as kidnapping if done by a criminal; why is THAT not stooping to his level?
Honestly, it's hard to tell the difference between justice and vengeance. Certainly, the way the press reports criminal court proceedings these days it's as if the justice system is there to provide vengeance (often denoted "closure") to victims and their families. Perhaps there is no real difference, and what we like to think of as justice is really nothing but institutionalized vengeance put in place to placate our primordial vengeful urges.
1) the murderer goes to jail in a fenced in outside area, and they get limited supplies to fend for themselves against the wild and to get food and water, ect. This would have to be monitored 24/7 with many guards surrounding the area, though.
2) make them give back to society and especially the victim(s) family(ies) by punishment, make them go to a therapist regularly, and do some fun things if they do really well and cooperate such as watching TV or listening to music (over like a year or so...not weekly or something. It shouldn't be bearable for them. They should learn why what they did was bad). (They should do all this without having to leave the jail and if they do something bad while in jail they should be sentenced to sit in a room where it's only them for a certain amount of time).
Killing a murderer stops the possibility of that murderer killing again. Solid logic. However, I think it's a slippery slope. If killing is the problem and killing is the solution. Then where are we headed? I think killing someone for committing murder is absurd. That murderer is going to die anyways, why are we speeding up the process? Aren't we intelligent enough to come up with a better solution where more people benefit? Wouldn't it make more sense to tie the punishment to new life? If someone takes a life, then I think the best punishment would be for them to help give new, or sustain current, life. Let's say we give them life in prison (if you're ever been locked up, you know how harsh it is to have your freedom ripped from you) and once they die, chop 'em up and distribute the organs to people who know they're coming from a murderer. I'm sure people would want to know... It could even be indirectly so there's no cause for concern. Say... put murderers to work on building a hospital. Then the punishment is tied to new life. I'm still not sure what the best punishment would be but I strongly believe that it should be connected to new life. Then the punishment will fit the crime but not mirror it. My two cents.
I agree, that is a giant brick wall and a topic for many heated debates. Maybe human rights is the place to start. What about tiers of human rights? Infringing on others rights will knock you down to the bottom tier. Basic needs will be met but certain decisions will no longer be yours to make, punishment for your crimes. But then people will complain that having human rights taken away is a breach of your human rights and a circular argument with no rewards commences. Criminals often have more rights than their victims... So in conclusion, the whole justice system is fucked and there's no solution that everyone will be satisfied with. It's interesting to talk about though.
Sentence him to work in the coal mines and any money he gets paid he has to give to the victim's family. But it really depends on what kind of murder he did. Did he torture and rape his victim first? Did he mutilate them before he killed them? Did he make it as painful as possible or was it quick and painless?
I actually do like your thought, it's a pretty nice idea And yeah, the purpose as the circumstances should be considered, too. (But not forgetting the fact that taking someones life is certainly the worst crime someone can do, even with or without reason ._.)
When you think that will do it when someone kills your entire family... I do think sending them in prison doesn't reduce criminality rate this much, and it's no replacement for life. But it's your opinion.