4 ms·

Article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights from 1948 (which the US voted for): Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Now

by m12k 10y ago

Article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights from 1948 (which the US voted for): Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Now, obviously we as a society cannot always guarantee these three things for all people, since criminals infringe on the rights of others and thus human rights are violated daily. In order to prevent this we choose to infringe on the liberty of criminals (by imprisoning them), in order to prevent their (greater) infringement on others. But since it is possible this way to prevent their infringement, by limiting only their liberty, there is no way to justify killing them instead, taking away not just some, but all of their liberty along with their life and their security. Yes, in order to enforce the human rights we must (somewhat ironically) infringe on them ourselves, but we cannot justify performing a bigger infringement than is absolutely necessary.

zanny 10y ago
The problem is America in particular views prison as punishment, because of its puritan roots and culture a large part of the country sees punishment as both an effective correctional technique and a deterrent when the evidence for decades has consistently shown neither hold. Which is part of the problem with the "abolish the death penalty" movement. The opposition was raised and impressed upon how prison is not for the security of society as a whole but for the punishment of the criminal. Except the later never works, and if you frame your law enforcement around that you end up violating a gross amount of human rights just like parents who think punishments are the optimal way to raise children most of the time end up abusing their kids.
- vlehto 10y ago
  What would you suggest as punishment for murder then?
  - farhaven 10y ago
    Life in prison without the option of parole. Or, if the murder was caused by something like a psychotic episode or drug withdrawal, therapy in a closed facility.
    - vlehto 10y ago
      So a free get therapy card? I don't mean to be asshole. It's just that the general moral decay from these things is the absolute worst that can happen. Most people don't think about it with all the focus in the current criminals and victims. Not the future of society. In my understanding the future of society is exactly why there is penal code in the first place.
      - eveningcoffee 10y ago
        If you would think about it a bit more, then it is possible that you would realize that therapy is more beneficial for the society in general than for the inmate. There would be many things to say, but I would be already incredibly happy if you would realize importance of this small aspect.
        vlehto 10y ago
        Therapy would be most beneficial to the society, if you don't need to commit a crime to get it.
        bonzini 10y ago
        With proper healthcare it ought to be free anyway, so the "cost" to society is the same. Why would it matter if your diagnosis came during a trial?
  - bonzini 10y ago
    Italy has lifetime prison for the equivalent of first-degree murder, though actually after 30 years you can get parole and after 20 years you can get out during the day for work ("semilibertà"). Lifetime without parole is only given in combination with mafia crimes. But it's very rarely the case that someone gets lifetime with parole, as your penalty is reduced by 1/3 if you are okay with having your sentence decided by the judge right at the preliminary hearing. In that case you can get 30 years for first-degree murder, with parole after 20 years and semilibertà after 15 years. This doesn't apply if you are declared "totally mentally incapable". In that case you don't get a normal sentence, instead you are subject to involuntary treatment which could possibly last for life.
  - tirant 10y ago
    What most of western countries do. Limited prison time and help for recovery.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  abusing kids is one extreme, opposite of it are spoiled kids who are allowed to do anything without consequences. I've seen quite a few kids where parents are clueless about proper parenting, and will do/grant/provide anything just to stop kid from annoying them and leave them alone. not surprisingly, those kids end up as proper aholes in school, not sure what comes after school years (but probably rarely something good). I personally believe in middle ground (well, not exactly in the middle) - accidents/mistakes should be explained and discussed, lessons learned etc. Intentional evil doing should be punished, ie by taking away phone/laptop/extra house chores/whatever, consequence adequate the action. In this kind of logic it makes sense to punish criminals, since it's believed some sort of pavlovian reflex would kick in (do bad -> go to jail). it ignores the complexity of reality, ie jail creates criminals even from good people, and practically never the opposite. But then again, you have serial killers, pedophiles, rapists etc in all kinds of horrible combinations. i don't believe these can be 'repaired', only made 'dormant'. What to do with these... people kill other people for no good reason all the time. I guess I somehow ceased to care in order to not go crazy from daily news
aplomb 10y ago
How do you reconcile this view with a life or death situation where you must kill or be killed?

by m12k 10y ago

zanny 10y ago

The problem is America in particular views prison as punishment, because of its puritan roots and culture a large part of the country sees punishment as both an effective correctional technique and a deterrent when the evidence for decades has consistently shown neither hold. Which is part of the problem with the "abolish the death penalty" movement. The opposition was raised and impressed upon how prison is not for the security of society as a whole but for the punishment of the criminal. Except the later never works, and if you frame your law enforcement around that you end up violating a gross amount of human rights just like parents who think punishments are the optimal way to raise children most of the time end up abusing their kids.

vlehto 10y ago
What would you suggest as punishment for murder then?
- farhaven 10y ago
  Life in prison without the option of parole. Or, if the murder was caused by something like a psychotic episode or drug withdrawal, therapy in a closed facility.
  - vlehto 10y ago
    So a free get therapy card? I don't mean to be asshole. It's just that the general moral decay from these things is the absolute worst that can happen. Most people don't think about it with all the focus in the current criminals and victims. Not the future of society. In my understanding the future of society is exactly why there is penal code in the first place.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      If you would think about it a bit more, then it is possible that you would realize that therapy is more beneficial for the society in general than for the inmate. There would be many things to say, but I would be already incredibly happy if you would realize importance of this small aspect.
      - vlehto 10y ago
        Therapy would be most beneficial to the society, if you don't need to commit a crime to get it.
        bonzini 10y ago
        With proper healthcare it ought to be free anyway, so the "cost" to society is the same. Why would it matter if your diagnosis came during a trial?
- bonzini 10y ago
  Italy has lifetime prison for the equivalent of first-degree murder, though actually after 30 years you can get parole and after 20 years you can get out during the day for work ("semilibertà"). Lifetime without parole is only given in combination with mafia crimes. But it's very rarely the case that someone gets lifetime with parole, as your penalty is reduced by 1/3 if you are okay with having your sentence decided by the judge right at the preliminary hearing. In that case you can get 30 years for first-degree murder, with parole after 20 years and semilibertà after 15 years. This doesn't apply if you are declared "totally mentally incapable". In that case you don't get a normal sentence, instead you are subject to involuntary treatment which could possibly last for life.
- tirant 10y ago
  What most of western countries do. Limited prison time and help for recovery.
saiya-jin 10y ago
abusing kids is one extreme, opposite of it are spoiled kids who are allowed to do anything without consequences. I've seen quite a few kids where parents are clueless about proper parenting, and will do/grant/provide anything just to stop kid from annoying them and leave them alone. not surprisingly, those kids end up as proper aholes in school, not sure what comes after school years (but probably rarely something good). I personally believe in middle ground (well, not exactly in the middle) - accidents/mistakes should be explained and discussed, lessons learned etc. Intentional evil doing should be punished, ie by taking away phone/laptop/extra house chores/whatever, consequence adequate the action. In this kind of logic it makes sense to punish criminals, since it's believed some sort of pavlovian reflex would kick in (do bad -> go to jail). it ignores the complexity of reality, ie jail creates criminals even from good people, and practically never the opposite. But then again, you have serial killers, pedophiles, rapists etc in all kinds of horrible combinations. i don't believe these can be 'repaired', only made 'dormant'. What to do with these... people kill other people for no good reason all the time. I guess I somehow ceased to care in order to not go crazy from daily news

aplomb 10y ago

How do you reconcile this view with a life or death situation where you must kill or be killed?