I'm not sure you're getting what I'm trying to say. Let me put it in a simpler way. You think you should pay for what you do wrong. Like revenge. Right? I"m saying that is uncivil and outdated. I went further into discussion by stating "An eye for an eye", the morality you're using, was made in Ancient Babylonian time. Understand?
But,u'll need to pay for wat u done. i mean it's not like revenge if one just go and kill another and does not have to pay then it will be injustice, then why do we need law for?
or are you trying to say we need new methods to punish criminals?since these methods are outdated.and we need one that is civilised. seriously,this is getting nowhere.
I'm not here to decide what happens, or the punishment. I would say limit his access to the public or a curfew. Have more guards in his area of residence. Corrupt him financially. Make him not applicable for the governments' positive sides. Give him a higher tax when using his Credit Card. Allow him only 1 Credit Card. A legalized house search every month or so often. You know, things like that. It'll actually make the government money without wasting 4 lives.
Ok heres what I think, any felony should be punished with death, or a really crappy cell, we are paying to much money for people who ruined our society to live comfortably, a misdemeanor (omg i spelled that right on my first try) should be the only thing that should stay the same. I don't care what your motives are, you (hopefully) should realize that killing, stealing or whatever is wrong. Nothing should cause you to resort to it. Don't give me any "He's poor so he had to hold up that lady" or shit like that cause you know thats wrong. There are plenty of people living poor, and honest lifestyles. if anything you should charge the criminal every little penny he made the prison spend on him, and if he can't afford the meal, put him out of his misery. A man shouldn't kill someone and be able to live a comfortable life, while living off other peoples money. Sorry if I draged this out a bit, i really dont like criminals, they piss me off.
SkullZero1, your logic goes against my morals so let me explain to you what I've been restating for the past 1/2 a page. The rule for "an eye for an eye" is outdated and barbaric. Its been here since Hammurabi thought of making in publicized during Ancient Babylonian times. After so long, don't you think evolution is just dandy? Maybe we should try something new. Killing doesn't make him actually repent. It saves him from a life of shame and regret and if we send them to prison we'll be using up our own tax money. My suggestion on charging them financially is payback and civil, gainful, payback. SkullZero1, many things can "iss you off" but killing someone because you think them killing someone is uncivil is uncivil as well. How ironic. Please think with a neutral and clear mind. I should also note, there are reasons for killing. Emotions. Stealing. Lust. There is always a reason. Now what is your reason for thinking killing the said person would actually help?
First degree murder and violent rape should equal life in prison, no parole. Both crimes are disgusting and anyone who commits them should be blocked from society forever.
When it comes to the death penalty, I say no. Like Masquerade said, "eye for an eye" is barbaric. I am not looking to kill criminals, but to protect society from them. Killing never gets anything solved for criminals.
Well it seems to me they do not want to die so really they are not getting away scott free. They get to go and rot in hell, that seems to me to be a punishment.
But yes if we keep them they can just get bailed out and kill again or even serve there term, get out and kill again.
But that does not mean we should go around killing them. Execution is a last resort that we only use when they are so bad that we have to kill them to prevent lots of guaranteed murders in the future. Example: The execution of the crips leader.
@Armed_Blade yeah i have a book about a guy, i think its called innocent man or something similar to that.. a guy was found guilty of murder (when innocent) and finally got out.. its way too expensive to just let inmates sit in jail and not do anything... we need to find a solution.. make their punishment so horrible they wont want to commit the crime.. make them do manual labor or something bad.. like they used to do when they had to build roads and maintain farms etc.. just sitting in jail all day contributes nothing..
yea,sitting in jail does not make em repent,just being a parasite. The_Masquerade, is wat u trying to say that people who kill should not be put on the death row and instead just be "corrupt financially?"and pay higher tax? then does this means successfull people can jsut go ahead a have a massacre and just pay higher taxes?
Honestly, it's a subject of which many raise the eyebrow to and many give the cold shoulder, in this day and age, a mere slap on the wrist does not suffice.
It also can clash with 'Smacking your Child', they have banned that in several EU countries now, and state that you don't need to forcefully smack your child, to show they were in the wrong, you can send them to there room, where all there stuff is. Thats punishment, and thats the punishment given to criminals.
I saw on the news a while back that someone got put in for murder, and was only sentenced to 2 years for it, because it 'might not' of been his fault.
What comes around goes around, the punishment you caused to another person, through torture or through death, is the punishment you should serve for a minimum of 10 years.
Example:
Murder: > Secluded Cell, No Visitors, No Parole, No Free Time Just You & 4 walls until > Death Row Death By Torture: > Secluded Cell, no Visitors, No parole, Death Row.
The list carries on where one person would face maximum penalty and would be given what they deserve.
For petty crimes, you cannot go and steal there TV, or Steal their money, they will have nothing of the sort, every $1 worth of goods they stole, is 1 extra day they spend in a cell, secluded from the outside world, again no visitors....i disagree with visitors, because that only gives them hope, it makes them happy, you don't send someone in the slammer to 'make them happy'.
if you steal $50,000 worth of TV's, guess what you and your accomplices just bagged yourselves, 50,000 days without parole in the slammers....Each.
why kill them when they could have so many other varied uses? i say this should go for all criminals on death row and those that have a sentance over 25years. product testing. cosmetics, drugs, military products. its so much more helpful to society than sitting in a cell or being 6 feet under.
Murderer should not be killed, there are a lot of dangerous an fatiguing jobs, that need people to "lose". They could be excavating sulphur, or chalc. They could remove eternit. They could clean ships (You should see the death toll). There are a lot of inventive way to get rid of them, without killing them outright; they could also repay part of the damage they caused. Not mentioning the fact, they will be a little more scared of a life sentence into a sulphur mine, than death penalty.
No; capital punishment is wrong, killing someone because they killed someone makes you just as bad as the 'criminal'. Just keep them in jail indefinitely.
