How does this happen?

[Adron]

Although that sounds like a good idea, I don't think it would work.  They'd likely try hard to stay straight until they were no longer being watched, then fall again.  Especially if the offense is for doing/selling drugs (meth, crack, whatever), since odds are people like that will fall right back into the criminal lifestyle. 

Indeed they will. The watch period would have to be long enough to give them something to lose - something that would make them consider before risking jail. If they just go out of prison to nothing, there's no wonder they come right back in again.

The other problem is the cost.  Is it really realistic looking after every person released from prison? 

Just out of curiosity, how does Sweden deal with this kind of thing?  Canada basically has the same broken system as the US, but I'm wondering if other places do things differently. 

Cost... Well, if it would prevent them from going back into prison, I think it would be profitable. After all, someone in prison is not producing as much usefulness as someone working in society. And no, Sweden is almost as broken. There are a bit of attempts of moving people to more relaxed environments before releasing them, and they can get short time remaining turned into "freedom" with electronic tracking device, but it sure does need work.

[Adron]

The only thing that is proven to protect society and stop a criminal from committing any more crime is the death penalty.

We are talking about criminals that were proven unanimously to be harmful to society as a whole by a carefully selected group of unbiased (regarding race or religion) individuals.

That is true. That is why "death penalty" is actually filling the rehabilitation part out of punishment, repairs and rehabilitation. Punishment scares people from committing crimes. Repairs attempts to compensate the victim. Rehabilitation makes sure the criminal does not return to crime.

Problem: People on death row sometimes change, in ways to make them at least *seem* very rehabilitated. If they are indeed rehabilitated, using the death penalty on them is a waste. Plus of course that as has been posted before, death penalty isn't all that cost efficient.

[CrAz3D]

People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)

I think the whole Australia kinda thing could be cool.  MAybe send them to Antartica this time, though.

[Grok]

People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)

Very poor assumption.  EVERY year people on death row are proven innocent and released based on new evidence or recanted testimony.  What if that is you who was wrongly accused and convicted of something you did not do?  I think you would sing a different tune about punishment and the justice system.

Being convicted is quite different from being guilty.

[Adron]

People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)

Also, you can get put on death row quick. One wrong decision, when you're upset, drunk, drugged, or in bad company...

[CrAz3D]

People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)

Very poor assumption.  EVERY year people on death row are proven innocent and released based on new evidence or recanted testimony.  What if that is you who was wrongly accused and convicted of something you did not do?  I think you would sing a different tune about punishment and the justice system.

Being convicted is quite different from being guilty.

Don't most new death sentences have absolute proof of guilt?  i.e. DNA results that do it?

[iago]

People on death row obviously did something bad, why give them a second chance?  (& I mean something REALLY bad)

Also, you can get put on death row quick. One wrong decision, when you're upset, drunk, drugged, or in bad company...

How do you suggest dealing with them? 

Like, should people be rewarded for spontaneity, or punished for it?  It seems like if somebody plots to kill their wife who cheated on him might be better off in society than somebody who gets pissed off and kills a stranger?  If the one who killed a cheating wife is free, he's not going to hurt me or anybody else, probably.  If the spontaneous guy is free, he's a risk to me, and my family, and everybody else.  So who really should be free?

Also, in terms of rehabilitation.  Somebody who was upset, drunk, drugged, or in bad company can be perfectly "rehabilitated" for months or years, as long as they don't fall back in that situation.  Then one day, they drink, smoke crack, hang with their old gang/friends, etc., and before you know it they've killed somebody else.  Whereas a person who decided to kill his wife, and planned it out, might really feel bad after doing it. 

The entire first- vs. second-degree murder charges don't really make much sense to me.  Why reward somebody for spontaneity?


To Crazed: DNA can be planted. 

[Adron]

How do you suggest dealing with them? 

Study them, and if they seem salvagable, do so. If not, just get rid of them.

Like, should people be rewarded for spontaneity, or punished for it?

There has to be a punishment part to it to discourage anyone from planning to do it. That could be cruel and unusual just to discourage people from doing it. After that comes the rehabilitation part, where we try to make sure they don't do it again. Punishment should be more severe for considered evils. Rehabilitation probably less.

[CrAz3D]

How do you suggest dealing with them? 

Study them, and if they seem salvagable, do so. If not, just get rid of them.

Cars or people?

[Adron]

Study them, and if they seem salvagable, do so. If not, just get rid of them.

Cars or people?

People obviously. Who is talking about cars? There are lots of human wrecks walking around, but I think most can be recovered to a useful state for society. And if not, I hear the Chinese are having a lot of success just using spare parts from them.

[CrAz3D]

The way you were talking about people you could've basically used the word cars instead.  People don't work like a machine.  They think.  They manipulate.  Anyone can be evil...cars only break

[Adron]

The way you were talking about people you could've basically used the word cars instead.  People don't work like a machine.  They think.  They manipulate.  Anyone can be evil...cars only break

Well, the difference between cars and people is not that big. Both have some point when it is better to just get rid of them than to try to fix them up. Both can behave weird and be hard to understand what is wrong with. And both can be harvested for spare parts to make others last longer.

[Invert]

This is what happens when criminals are given a 2nd chance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175862,00.html

"Before Carlie's death, Smith had been arrested at least 13 times since 1993, mostly on drug offenses, although he was twice charged with committing violence against women.

In one case, he was charged with kidnapping a 20-year-old woman, but was later acquitted. He pleaded no contest in the other case, in which a woman said he hit her in the face with a motorcycle helmet. He was sentenced to 60 days in a county jail.

His only prison time was about 17 months behind bars on drug possession and fraud charges."

I hope some of you understand that protecting society is a far better cause than saving a criminal.

[Arta]

A balanced and fair justice system does protect society. I take issue with your interpretation of this story; I think that that kind of case is the exception, not the rule. The overbearing, unchecked power of the state over the citizen is a much bigger threat to society than criminals. Defendents should be provided with the best defence possible (they currently aren't) and sentences should be proportional (they currently aren't).

[Invert]

A balanced and fair justice system does protect society. I take issue with your interpretation of this story; I think that that kind of case is the exception, not the rule. The overbearing, unchecked power of the state over the citizen is a much bigger threat to society than criminals. Defendents should be provided with the best defence possible (they currently aren't) and sentences should be proportional (they currently aren't).

So you are saying we should have more cases like OJ Simpson's case. He had the best lawyers that got him off the hook after he murdered 2 people and murderers should all have their sentences reduced?

Maybe all Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Kaczynskis and Scott Petersons should go and get themselves a better lower and be found not guilty? How many more exceptions do you want me to list?