Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
hardcore_gamer

Is "life in prison" too cruel a punishment to be legal?

Recommended Posts

Let's kill all prisoners wholesale, feed their cadavers to the poor, and use the empty prisons to provide housing for the homeless. Look at how many problems I just solved!

Better yet, lets just lock up the homeless while they're in there, so we could start this process over and over again.

Of course this will have to be administered by the private sector, so we don't have to spend tax-payer dollars.

How's that for GOP thinking, Technician?

Edit:Come to think of it, Vlad Tepes did something similar to this.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know KK...you still need to keep some henchmen around to do the rounding up, bullying, torturing, killing etc. Exactly where would they stand? What if they start thinking they are better than you?

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

I don't know KK...you still need to keep some henchmen around to do the rounding up, bullying, torturing, killing etc. Exactly where would they stand? What if they start thinking they are better than you?


Your avatar is very fitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

Your avatar is very fitting.


So your henchmen in your perfect new world order, would be tall, muscular cyberdemons with tanned butts, which you would regularly fist to show'em who's boss?

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

So your henchmen in your perfect new world order, would be tall, muscular cyberdemons with tanned butts, which you would regularly fist to show'em who's boss?


I already told you, that would be handled by the private sector. I'm not in this equation, but you seem like you want to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

I already told you, that would be handled by the private sector.


What private sector? If things were run in the way you envision, soon there would be nobody left who wouldn't be at immediate risk of incarceration and execution/neutering, lest he was part of your repressive apparatus.

But then again under those conditions, only dumb musclemen grunts and cutthroats could survive in your "utopia", and you'd be dependent on imports for anything technical/scientific, as you'd probably cause anyone capable of handling such stuff to flee or have him preemptively killed, just in case. That would put you at constant risk of conquest by external enemies, or deposition by your own henchmen. Practically, your little awesome state would have to become a satellite/protectorate of a larger one (e.g. Saudi Arabia to USA, or Bielorussia to Russia) in order to make ends meet and not be torn apart the next instant.

Kontra Kommando said:

I'm not in this equation, but you seem like you want to be.


BUT KK, L0L, I THOUGHT THAT YOU WANTED TO BE A 12-FOOT TALL AWESOME CYBER ROBOT DICTATOR WITH EYE LAZERS AND SHIT, LMAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

What private sector? If things were run in the way you envision, soon there would be nobody left who wouldn't be at immediate risk of incarceration and execution/neutering, lest he was part of your repressive apparatus.

But then again under those conditions, only dumb musclemen grunts and cutthroats could survive in your "utopia", and you'd be dependent on imports for anything technical/scientific, as you'd probably cause anyone capable of handling such stuff to flee or have him preemptively killed, just in case. That would put you at constant risk of conquest by external enemies, or deposition by your own henchmen. Practically, your little awesome state would have to become a satellite/protectorate of a larger one (e.g. Saudi Arabia to USA, or Bielorussia to Russia) in order to make ends meet and not be torn apart the next instant.


If you really think I am serious, you must only be using 10% of your brain ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Poe's law my friend, Poe's law. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Poe's law my friend, Poe's law. I prefer to err on the side of caution.


You know, all this time I thought you were just fucking with me. Most of what I say is not serious. I don't mean to troll, but I tend to get progressively more absurd when people start attacking my initial statements on all sides.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for the delay. I'll respond to these posts together, since they're kind of pointing to the same conclusion.

Membrain said:

@Caffeine Freak: You may feel that it's unfair for me to assume that you support the death penalty based on your question about percentages. The point I was making wasn't an attempt to put up a strawman argument so I can parade around shouting how right I am and how wrong you are. It's really nothing more than taking your question to its logical conclusion. My point is that the percentages don't matter. If a single innocent life is taken by the state, then you're not supporting justice but instead state-sanctioned murder.

Anyway, this is all retreading ground that's been covered over and over. There's not really any way to justify a death penalty without also enabling innocent casualties. Since we're talking about civilian justice systems and not war, I can't believe for a second that it's acceptable unless no innocents are killed.

Gez said:

But it is!

Either death penalty is part of law, and then some innocents will be executed wrongfully; or it isn't and then nobody will be executed. That's it, really. Sure, they aren't sentenced all at once in the same trial, but here in this little scenario we're not judging them, just deciding what penalty can be applied to them. We were legislating.

Some countries, such as pretty much all of Europe, chose not to have death penalty. Others, such as the USA, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, or Tajikistan, chose to use it.


This kind of goes back to something I said earlier: innocent lives can be jeopardized regardless of which approach you take.

Let's go back to the 999 murderers and 1 innocent scenario. Hypothetically, let's say you execute all of them. In that case, 1 innocent life is snuffed out. However, keep in mind you've also effectively prevented the true murderers from taking additional lives.

Or hypothetically, you execute none of them. In that case, the innocent of the group is spared. However, this still leaves open the possibility that say, 10 of the murderers will be able to make a deal for a reduced sentence, or get out on parole for good behavior, or as an outside possibility, escape the prison, and subsequently kill again. But then again, they don't even have to get outside the prison walls to take more lives. Prison is a notoriously violent environment, and you're effectively extending the opportunity for these 10 (or however many) convicted murderers to take more lives, including those of inmates who may be in for much lesser infractions than murder. So in this scenario, you've taken the 'safe' route by not executing anyone, but it's cost several more innocent lives in the long run.

All of this is just hypothetical, but again, I'm merely pointing out that neither the death penalty(at least as it is carried out in the US) or lack thereof is truly fail-safe as far as protecting innocent lives.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

I can't think of any reason for why the state should not be allowed to lock up the worst of the population forever with no chance of getting out.

The whole general notion that prisoners should have their sentances reduced because they behaved well in prison is insane.

I'm kind of seeing your point, but you run under the assumption that the state would no longer keep any prisoners locked up for life. The possibliity of a review does not gurantee a prisoner's freedom at all - it just opens up the possibility that they might not be in prison for the rest of their lives. I understand that anybody with a strong will and presence of mind can show faux-progress and good behavior with the chance of getting out after 25 years, but that lies more in how they conduct the review process and the methods used in doing so. The judge can still decide after the review that a person should continue to remain in jail for the rest of their life if they see fit.

And why shouldn't there be reviews? Unless your worried that every ravenous, murderous criminal is going to become honky-dory and get released, I don't see this as a bad thing at all. Should there be someone let out in the future after such a review and they go on a murderous rampage then maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe that every person who commits a violent crime remains inherently murderous/violent the rest of their lives. Just some of them

EDIT: I just realized I missed 3 pages of this thread :x If this sentiment was already stated, feel free to pass this by

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

Most of what I say is not serious. I don't mean to troll...


As a friendly advice, that kind of attitude can get you into quite some trouble on this forum.

Joking itself is OK, and full time jokers/stoners are usually figured out pretty quickly and left alone (there are a few that end up in losers or banned, though).

However pussying out of previous statements by saying "J/K, just fucking with you, bro" (as you did in another thread) is not so welcome. Actually it's borderline trolling of the worst kind. It's like saying a big "fuck you" to all the people that participated in a thread or sub-topic that YOU started, thinking you have something to say. Don't take strong positions if you aren't ready to follow through with them, at least verbally.

Share this post


Link to post
Caffeine Freak said:

All of this is just hypothetical, but again, I'm merely pointing out that neither the death penalty(at least as it is carried out in the US) or lack thereof is truly fail-safe as far as protecting innocent lives.

Will the convicts repeat their crime after they've done their time? It's possible, and it has happened. However, they aren't supposed to be let out when they are thought to be still dangerous.

The biggest issue here is who kills. Is it the state, or is it a criminal? If it's the state, then it's the state that is a criminal.

The idea of killing to protect lives can quickly go to rather weird conclusions by the way. Especially if you add vigilantism to the mix. Say you have someone who go murder ex-convicts after they're released from prison, because he thinks they're still a risk. What do you do with that guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

I don't mean to troll, but I tend to get progressively more absurd when people start attacking my initial statements on all sides.

Your initial statements were already absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

As a friendly advice, that kind of attitude can get you into quite some trouble on this forum.

Joking itself is OK, and full time jokers/stoners are usually figured out pretty quickly and left alone (there are a few that end up in losers or banned, though).

However pussying out of previous statements by saying "J/K, just fucking with you, bro" (as you did in another thread) is not so welcome. Actually it's borderline trolling of the worst kind. It's like saying a big "fuck you" to all the people that participated in a thread or sub-topic that YOU started, thinking you have something to say. Don't take strong positions if you aren't ready to follow through with them, at least verbally.


What did I pussy out of in the other thread? When I said I wanted to be a 12 foot robot (which was a joke)? Besides, why do you not question the other 90% of people that make such statement?

exp(x) said:

Your initial statements were already absurd.


Is everyone you disagree with absurd?

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

The biggest issue here is who kills. Is it the state, or is it a criminal? If it's the state, then it's the state that is a criminal.


This.

The biggest problem with the death penalty is that of responsibility. When the state executes and innocent, it's murder. The state is composed of individuals, citizens like you or I. Thus, we're directly responsible for killing this person. If you err on the side of caution, maybe someone might escape and kill again. Even if that happens, the burden of blame lays on that person, not the state and subsequently you. You can't hold yourself responsible for the actions of others, after all.

And yes, I realize that this only covers the moral ground, but there's really no logistical, economic, or socially responsible justification for the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post

Really, KK, taking controversial positions and then "defending" them with half-baked rhethoric skills, cheap political debate tricks and finally denial and subtle (or so you think) trolling make for quite an irritating mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Really, KK, taking controversial positions and then "defending" them with half-baked rhethoric skills, cheap political debate tricks and finally denial and subtle (or so you think) trolling make for quite an irritating mix.


uhh okay,

but you didn't answer any of my questions from my prior post.

Share this post


Link to post

Because they are classical exercises left to the reader.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

Actually, they are very simple questions, try again.


Exactly. They are so simple that you can answer them yourself (oh faithful disciple).

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

You know, all this time I thought you were just fucking with me. Most of what I say is not serious. I don't mean to troll, but I tend to get progressively more absurd when people start attacking my initial statements on all sides.

Why? You give no hint at being facestious and proceed to respond to everything with sincerety as if it were your own opinion. How exactly are we supposed to NOT take you seriously? You didn't attempt to tell us you weren't serious until many posts later, after you backed up your opinion several times.

If you really are trolling, then this is one of the worst forms of it.

Share this post


Link to post

I was serious about all that other stuff, but not the hammer smashed dick, or killing prisoners, and poor people wholesale (figured those were self-evident) which I didn't I defend.

I really don't think I owe some of you any explanation, especially after so much calculating bitchy-ness toward me.

GreyGhost said:

How about amputating the offending appendage? A pair of bypass loppers should do the job nicely.


If you guys actually read the thread, you would see that when I wrote that stuff about smashing the dicks of rapists with hammers, it was in response to this. I give stupid answers to stupid questions, that's why I wrote that.

j4rio said:

Screw prison, deploy medieval torture machines!

schwerpunk said:

For maximum deterrence, don't forget to make the torture public! Farmer's market just got a lot more interesting! :D

darkreaver said:

Bring out....the wheel!


oH my gaWd! Theses guys must be serious too, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

Is everyone you disagree with absurd?

No, but I'll make an exception for you.

Share this post


Link to post

is that ironic chainposting or are you getting hysterical for real? i can't tell anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

Will the convicts repeat their crime after they've done their time? It's possible, and it has happened. However, they aren't supposed to be let out when they are thought to be still dangerous.

The biggest issue here is who kills. Is it the state, or is it a criminal? If it's the state, then it's the state that is a criminal.


That being said, there is a bit of difference between the state unknowingly executing the wrong person, and a criminal killing again because he was given the chance to.

Gez said:

The idea of killing to protect lives can quickly go to rather weird conclusions by the way. Especially if you add vigilantism to the mix. Say you have someone who go murder ex-convicts after they're released from prison, because he thinks they're still a risk. What do you do with that guy?


I'm not talking about vigilantism, and I honestly think ordinary citizens should stay out of it. If they choose to take matters into their own hands, (other than as self-defense) they should be subject to the same penalties as anyone else. You can't have a society where ordinary citizens go around dispensing their own brand of justice as they see fit. It always results in chaos.

And there really isn't anything weird about killing to protect innocent lives, either. It's part of the reason we give cops guns. Part of the idea behind protecting the innocent is damage control.


Membrain said:

This.

The biggest problem with the death penalty is that of responsibility. When the state executes and innocent, it's murder. The state is composed of individuals, citizens like you or I. Thus, we're directly responsible for killing this person. If you err on the side of caution, maybe someone might escape and kill again. Even if that happens, the burden of blame lays on that person, not the state and subsequently you. You can't hold yourself responsible for the actions of others, after all.


As I said though, a convicted murderer doesn't need to escape to kill again, he only needs to be in the vicinity of other human beings. In many ways, prison provides ample opportunity for that.

Take a look at it this way: if a cop spots a crazed gunman mowing down civilians in a crowded public area, he should shoot him, right? Say he takes the gamble, and successfully stops the gunmen, but accidentally kills a civilian in the process. If it winds up being 6 casualties instead of however many more, isn't that still the preferred outcome?

Or as a second possibility, what if he misses and hits a bystander? Should he just not shoot at all? Let's say he doesn't, for whatever reason, and instead of killing 5 people, the gunman ends up killing 10. Does the cop not shoulder part of the blame, through sheer incompetence and/or gross negligence? He had a chance to stop the gunman and he didn't.

All of this is, I believe, a useful analogy to what we're talking about. If the state unknowingly executes the wrong person, they are guilty of a crime resulting from (among other things) negligence, incompetence, or possibly ignorance, but it doesn't put them on the same level as a person committing first-degree murder. However, if the state lets the convicted murderer live, and he goes on to kill more people, whether inside or outside of prison, their hands are not clean in the matter. No, we aren't responsible for the actions of others, but the state has a certain responsibility to take necessary preventive measures against it happening again. It's the same reason prisoners are monitored and put on probation after being released, and a database exists for registered sex offenders.


I suppose one of the big questions here is which do you believe is a bigger, less acceptable risk: the state inadvertently executing the wrong guy, or the state allowing the wrong guy to live, resulting in more death(s)? I personally think the latter to be far more likely.

But I sense we're quickly approaching a stalemate on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Caffeine Freak said:

I suppose one of the big questions here is which do you believe is a bigger, less acceptable risk: the state inadvertently executing the wrong guy, or the state allowing the wrong guy to live, resulting in more death(s)? I personally think the latter to be far more likely.

But I sense we're quickly approaching a stalemate on this issue.


You're right, this is probably approaching a stalemate, but I would like to point out that there's been nearly 200 people released from death row after being proven innocent of their crimes. With roughly 1400 people executed since 1976, that leaves you with roughly a 15% release rate. And that's only those that get lucky enough to be found innocent. On the other hand, there's only a 1.2% recidivism rate for homicides on average. By the way, these stats were collected from the Bureau of Justice's archives from 1976 until 2013/2012.

So you tell me, which is more likely and which sounds more dangerous? Also, let's keep in mind that those victims who are executed prematurely have their case's evidence destroyed, completely eliminating any chance of finding the real murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Caffeine Freak said:

And there really isn't anything weird about killing to protect innocent lives, either. It's part of the reason we give cops guns. Part of the idea behind protecting the innocent is damage control.

Cops aren't supposed to be using their guns to randomly shoot civilians that they suspect might become criminals later. It's to be used in certain specific situations where there is a clear and present danger to themselves or other people.

Cops have been tried for opening fire on suspects that were merely fleeing the scene rather than being aggressive towards anyone.

Using the death penalty out of belief that the convicts will kill again is a kind of preemptive murder logic. It's punishing them for crimes that they have yet to commit, rather than for those they actually have committed.

It certainly is a logic you can apply to the criminally insane, like Hannibal Lecter or the Joker; but these people aren't as frequent in the real world as they are in fiction. And anyway, they are the guys getting the NGRI pass. Most murders aren't committed by comic book supervillains who will kill again every chance they get because it's just what they do. Here's an interesting article with some stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Caffeine Freak said:

You can't have a society where ordinary citizens go around dispensing their own brand of justice as they see fit. It always results in chaos.


Of course, this implies that there are extraordinary citizens with outstanding qualities and powers that should dispense a particular brand of justice. OK, so those would be state-approved cops...but even those can step out of line and abuse their "extraordinary" status, and they often do. At which point, they are little more than bandits with a badge and red tape.

Caffeine Freak said:

As I said though, a convicted murderer doesn't need to escape to kill again, he only needs to be in the vicinity of other human beings. In many ways, prison provides ample opportunity for that.


Only that prison has its own moral code, and killing behind prison bars is usually downplayed in the mainstream news (at most it may cost a suspect inmate a few months of solitary, with no trial or thorough investigation), and has other types of consequences (immediate reprisal by gangs etc.) so this not really a good example. A pathological killer will prefer the "easy marks" and better escape opportunities outside of prison, if killing really is what floats his boat.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×