Ayiekie Wrote:Timote Wrote:It's a matter of opinion. I don't think the death penalty is the answer to every murder conviction. More for people who are serial killers, massmurders, or the rare nutjob that revels in their deeds. The rabid dogs who, if released, are likely to kill again. If the person gets enough 'consecutive life sentences without parole' that he's garunteed to die in prison, then execute him, and be done with it.It is, however, not a matter of opinion that the death penalty does not in fact reduce crime levels. This is simply fact, as borne out time and time again in the real world. What you get past that point is the ethics of state-sanctioned murder, which does become more of a matter of opinion. However, it is also not a matter of opinion but simple fact that innocent people will be murdered if there is a death penalty, and since the death penalty does absolutely no good whatsoever, I cannot think of any logical reason to support it.
A guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another guy, snaps and kills them both? No, that's not something that deserves the Death Penalty.
Of course, I also think that people are sent to prison to be punished. If it were up to me, prisoners wouldn't be able to watch cable, eat fancy meals, and so on. If the prisoners are enjoying themselves, then the prison isn't helping.
And sending people to prison "to be punished" does not accomplish anything. The point of a justice system is to protect the innocent first and foremost, not to fulfill revenge wishes. Ideally, it accomplishes this both by separating dangerous individuals from the general population, and by helping those incarcerated to not commit further crimes. For those criminals who are not incurably insane or anti-social (which is most of them), you are actively impeding this goal by making prison as miserable an experience as possible. People cut off from the world and then kicked out into society years later with the many disadvantages inherent to a criminal record, no further training, and no help are very likely to commit further crimes due to a lack of other opportunities. This is bad for them as individuals, bad for the people who will be the victims of their crimes, and bad for society in general (which bears the costs of incarceration, funds for police forces, and so forth).
So, in short, if the prison is not helping reduce recidivism, that is what "isn't helping". The existence of cable or "fancy meals" has nothing to do with the actual purpose of the justice system. Few people commit crimes with the intent of being sent to prison due to its luxury. If someone ever does, that probably says a lot more about the horrificness of the society than it does about the luxury of the prisons.
As far as the Death Penalty not acting as a deterant, of course not when the punishment is delayed 10+ years. That's like punishing a dog for crapping on the carpet, but waiting a week before you do so. The punishment and the 'crime' aren't linked in the minds of the punished or observers.
When I can commit a crime, get sent to prison and live better in there than I can out of out of prison, it's more of a encouragement than a deterrant.
If prisons are so ineffective, then what do you suggest society do to those who break the law? Shake your finger at them and say 'that's bad, now play nice'? If there's no punishment for breaking the law, then it's not a law, it's a suggestion.
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin