4 ms·

Personally, I think corporal punishment and fines should play a much larger role. Someone who is basically a nuisance, like, a vandal, or a thief, should be de

Personally, I think corporal punishment and fines should play a much larger role. Someone who is basically a nuisance, like, a vandal, or a thief, should be dealt with via fines or community service and a punitive flogging. There is no need to incarcerate such a person for extended time at high cost to society and to the individual being punished. Criminals who are deranged, either in the sense of committing especially heinous crimes (e.g. child rape) or in the sense of repeatedly committing serious crimes without evidence that they are able to reform should be humanely executed the same way we put down problematic animals.

maroonblazer 4y ago
Vandals and thieves, if it's their first offense, sure, fines and community service are fine. If they're repeat offenders then they need to be locked up. For the "deranged", I prefer imprisonment for at least two reasons: 1. They may have friends/relatives who would be harmed by them no longer existing. Why punish them? 2. Death is too easy an 'out'. If I had no other tether to society, then choosing a peaceful sleep vs a daily reminder of my actions is an easy choice; put me to sleep.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
is there any evidence to backup the approached you propose as effective, efficient, or desirable in any way? Especially since you seem to advocate flogging, which is a form of torture. And advocate executions, which grants the government ultinate tyranical power over a citizen. And when a mistake is made, and the innocent is executed, this mistake can never be corrected. Such mistakes are quite conmon, as apparently in America police will lie in counrt, claim that their dog can smell a body that was in a particular location years ago, but now cannot be found and jurors will convict based on testimony of a dog.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  I don't believe our current system (in the US) is based on evidence, so I see no reason to limit alternatives to being backed by evidence. I've never had the opportunity to run my own justice system, so no, I can't say how well it works. I think corporal punishment is vastly more humane and prefer it largely for humanitarian reasons. If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea? There needs to be some deterrent, but taking years from a person's life, and forcing them to live in squalid conditions and in close proximity to violent criminals, is not a humane deterrent, it is not an effective deterrent (as evidenced by recidivism rates), and it is not an effective deterrent in terms of either dollars or time. Flogging, by contrast, can be executed quickly and cheaply, and, while the injury might stay with you for weeks, doesn't take a large quantity of your life. Flogging is also visually impressive and likely to be something that most people want to avoid. Flogging has a long history of use as a punishment too - suggesting it would have a useful deterrent effect. Regarding execution - no mistakes can ever be corrected. If you send a person to prison and they commit suicide, die of disease, or are killed by another inmate, all of which are vastly more common in prison than in the general population, you can't undo your mistake should you discover that the person sentenced was wrongfully convicted. Likewise, even if you sentence someone for five years, discover after two it was a mistake, they do not get their life back. Does this mean we should never imprison people? It's fine to say there should be a higher bar of proof required for execution, but the finality of the sentence is not a reason not to employ it. There are people who have committed heinous crimes caught on video, attested to by witnesses, placed at the scene by evidence, and who have confessed their own guilt, and who have no plausible defense. In such a scenario why should we stay punishment out of a paranoia that maybe, despite all evidence, we might be wrong and might one day want to release this horrible criminal back to the general population?
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    > If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea? We are torturing prisoners in several ways, from solitary confinement to physical deprivation. People do routinely propose that we stop, and they do get asked for evidence that their proposal would be better. Your idea is one that we have evidence against because, as you mention, it has a long history. (And that is not actually evidence that it works: otherwise we'd just use witchcraft.)
  - scott_w 4y ago
    Since you're proposing society tortures and kills people without evidence that it'll make things better (and in spite of the evidence that it clearly doesn't), you're essentially saying "let's torture and kill people for fun." If you followed that logic out, what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      Actually, given that the current model tortures and kills people to a greater extent - long prison terms in squalid conditions being worse and more dangerous than flogging, and there is no evidence that the current model is better than my system, you (or the status quo) are the one, by rejecting alternatives, proposing we torture and kill people without evidence. Following your logic what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?
      - scott_w 4y ago
        Point out where I said the current system works. I think the system needs to change but that change needs to be with clear goals and with evidence that those goals can be, and are being, met. That’s why I’d propose looking at models that reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of inmates. That’s what makes me better than a murderer or violent criminal.

maroonblazer 4y ago

Vandals and thieves, if it's their first offense, sure, fines and community service are fine. If they're repeat offenders then they need to be locked up. For the "deranged", I prefer imprisonment for at least two reasons: 1. They may have friends/relatives who would be harmed by them no longer existing. Why punish them? 2. Death is too easy an 'out'. If I had no other tether to society, then choosing a peaceful sleep vs a daily reminder of my actions is an easy choice; put me to sleep.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

is there any evidence to backup the approached you propose as effective, efficient, or desirable in any way? Especially since you seem to advocate flogging, which is a form of torture. And advocate executions, which grants the government ultinate tyranical power over a citizen. And when a mistake is made, and the innocent is executed, this mistake can never be corrected. Such mistakes are quite conmon, as apparently in America police will lie in counrt, claim that their dog can smell a body that was in a particular location years ago, but now cannot be found and jurors will convict based on testimony of a dog.

ALittleLight 4y ago
I don't believe our current system (in the US) is based on evidence, so I see no reason to limit alternatives to being backed by evidence. I've never had the opportunity to run my own justice system, so no, I can't say how well it works. I think corporal punishment is vastly more humane and prefer it largely for humanitarian reasons. If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea? There needs to be some deterrent, but taking years from a person's life, and forcing them to live in squalid conditions and in close proximity to violent criminals, is not a humane deterrent, it is not an effective deterrent (as evidenced by recidivism rates), and it is not an effective deterrent in terms of either dollars or time. Flogging, by contrast, can be executed quickly and cheaply, and, while the injury might stay with you for weeks, doesn't take a large quantity of your life. Flogging is also visually impressive and likely to be something that most people want to avoid. Flogging has a long history of use as a punishment too - suggesting it would have a useful deterrent effect. Regarding execution - no mistakes can ever be corrected. If you send a person to prison and they commit suicide, die of disease, or are killed by another inmate, all of which are vastly more common in prison than in the general population, you can't undo your mistake should you discover that the person sentenced was wrongfully convicted. Likewise, even if you sentence someone for five years, discover after two it was a mistake, they do not get their life back. Does this mean we should never imprison people? It's fine to say there should be a higher bar of proof required for execution, but the finality of the sentence is not a reason not to employ it. There are people who have committed heinous crimes caught on video, attested to by witnesses, placed at the scene by evidence, and who have confessed their own guilt, and who have no plausible defense. In such a scenario why should we stay punishment out of a paranoia that maybe, despite all evidence, we might be wrong and might one day want to release this horrible criminal back to the general population?
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  > If we were torturing prisoners, and I proposed we stopped, would you ask for the evidence to back up the idea that cutting out torture was a good idea? We are torturing prisoners in several ways, from solitary confinement to physical deprivation. People do routinely propose that we stop, and they do get asked for evidence that their proposal would be better. Your idea is one that we have evidence against because, as you mention, it has a long history. (And that is not actually evidence that it works: otherwise we'd just use witchcraft.)
- scott_w 4y ago
  Since you're proposing society tortures and kills people without evidence that it'll make things better (and in spite of the evidence that it clearly doesn't), you're essentially saying "let's torture and kill people for fun." If you followed that logic out, what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    Actually, given that the current model tortures and kills people to a greater extent - long prison terms in squalid conditions being worse and more dangerous than flogging, and there is no evidence that the current model is better than my system, you (or the status quo) are the one, by rejecting alternatives, proposing we torture and kill people without evidence. Following your logic what makes you better than a murderer or violent criminal?
    - scott_w 4y ago
      Point out where I said the current system works. I think the system needs to change but that change needs to be with clear goals and with evidence that those goals can be, and are being, met. That’s why I’d propose looking at models that reduce reoffending and ensure the safety of inmates. That’s what makes me better than a murderer or violent criminal.