• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Help me understand the life sentence

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love how this and every argument turns into "this is worse case scenario", therefore all logic is invalidated.

My vote is to have a death penalty that handles repeat offenders. Maybe 5 separate convictions? 10 strikes? There are some people out there that without a shadow of a doubt are problems to society and are just wasting everyone's time and resources. Get rid of them and bring down the cost to the taxpayers.
 

Ferga

Member
My perception of a life sentence:

These criminals cannot live a life where they have complete freedom on what they do. If they are confined to a prison where they must abide by rules/regulations and they know that there is an immediate and certain punishment for actions that break the rules, they can actually live a life where innocent people around them don't get hurt.
 

JGS

Banned
People can and have been "rehabilitated" after committing murder. you can't draw a clear line. Beyond that, the chance of executing an innocent is too high. Atleast with life inprisonment they have some meagre chance of clearing their name, and theyre not dead.

also: this isn't really ideological. you can look at statistics for whether or not this is an effective way to reduce crime rates.
I never said that they couldn't be rehab'd. I don't think it matters when you commit the ultimate crime. The punishment for the crime is far more important than the betterment of a willing criminal. They had their chance and they blew it which is why, in absence of the death penalty, they should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. There's no way possible to clear your name of murder unless you didn't murder someone.

Just so we're clear, I'm against the death penalty specifically because it doesn't settle the proof burden. If that were somehow magically cleared up, then clearing their name would never be an issue and they should be killed for the crime they committed. Never in a million years would I feel sorry for a murderer.

I also disagree about stats. The stats mean nothing because the death penalty is not universally implemented. For every hundred murders, how many become death penalty cases? The justice system is almost entirely marketing & haggling. You literally have to place a higher value on one particular type of death over another which is insane. If there was an automatic death penalty conviction for all murders, I guarantee the crime rate would go down (What's the murder rate in Singapore?). A non-universal death penalty is worthless.

Btw, I'm being totally ideological. I'm just saying I can't feel sorry for someone that didn't think about the life they took. Since I could never actually prove that, there no way it works except in the rarest of cases. Since that is too small a number, there's no point in having it at all.
 

Al-ibn Kermit

Junior Member
My wife's a C.O. and the way it was explained to me ( at least in the state of illinois) is that it's technically cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to execute them because of bureaucratic red tape/paper work filing that comes with trying to execute someone.
Do you think that guards would be safer if only the most violent prisoners were executed? The ones who have continued to be violent even when in prison serving a life sentence.
 
That is an extremely optimistic assumption, but regardless, even a measurable reduction of wrongful executions from "a lot" to "not many" is unacceptable. Killing people as a function of the state is not a fact of life, and if the system is never going to be perfect--and it isn't--then it shouldn't be used at all.

How many "false rehabilitations" have there been? How many murderers have been released, only to quickly murder again? I trust the modern criminal court system when it comes to murder trials more than the rehabilitation system. I guess others here trust the other more.


Sure, that's why i didn't say that everybody should simply adopt that method right now.
That's beyond my point though, because the disappointment the VICE guy expressed (that i perceived, anyway) wasn't relative to the impossibility of implementing such system in a much bigger and more complex country (such as the US), but more at the lack of the "punishment" notion in the application of the sentence.
Which can be an understandable positions, but that i disagree with.
Aside from all the economic and practical points, the fundamental discussion rests on (arbitrary) personal concepts of "justice".
I think the "death penalty is barbaric" argument can be as subjective and as empty as the "x offender deserves death, cause it's scum!".
Personally i don't see a point to death penalty, i don't think we should calculate justice on a simple 1:1 parameter of: "you kill, you die; you torture, you get tortured."
And although i am sure that, if someone should happen to hurt or kill someone close to me, i'd be more than happy to see him die, i don't think that has really any weight into the matter of how society should treat criminals, big or small.

Your feelings concerning the hypothetical of a family member or someone else you personally care about being murdered are not trivial to the larger picture.

Without the death penalty, the chances of revenge murders jump quite a bit. If the family members cannot seek their perceived justice on a person who has murdered one of their own, they may be tempted to enact revenge on the murderer's family. Or perhaps, if a convicted murderer's life sentence is overturned and released, the victim's family will be tempted to kill the person themselves. In a society, which people are more willing to take matters in their own hands, like American society, a federal death penalty ban increases the probability for family wars and vigilantism.
 

UrbanRats

Member
Your feelings concerning the hypothetical of a family member or someone else you personally care about being murdered are not trivial to the larger picture.

Well, not trivial, but a single person (especially the least lucid person on the subject, the victim) can get as flawed as it gets, while a more objective and detached "system", is bound to be more fruitful.
And this is how it works right now, really (to a degree, anyway).
"Good" citizens should feel protected and supported by society, and that's true, but the scope, the nature, and the reach of this "protection", is highly debatable.
Afterall we don't cut hands for theft anymore, do we? I think culture can be influenced and shifted towards an even less revenge-based system, and still mantain that degree of "social tranquillity" needed.

Without the death penalty, the chances of revenge murders jump quite a bit. If the family members cannot seek their perceived justice on a person who has murdered one of their own, they may be tempted to enact revenge on the murderer's family. Or perhaps, if a convicted murderer's life sentence is overturned and released, the victim's family will be tempted to kill the person themselves. In a society, which people are more willing to take matters in their own hands, like American society, a federal death penalty ban increases the probability for family wars and vigilantism.

Well, considering that the majority of the countries do not have death penalty, i wouldn't consider that a fact at all.
Thing is, the "perceived justice" is too vague of a term to be applied as law.
For the sake of argument, if you grope my ass and i think that "justice" is for your dick to be cut off, i'm gonna have to deal with the fact that i don't get what i want, and settle for something more appropriate.

As long as the victims don't feel betrayed by society, i don't see "family wars" being a concrete problem (and it's not that common for families to actually go through with personal vendettas), the only vigilantes i've heard of, are entitled douchebags (unrelated to the victims) who feel the need to release some anger and violence, using justice as an excuse.

Again, there must be a sense of protection, but i never meant to simply treat criminals with the gloves, for the sake of being good at all costs, i'm saying we should follow a logic less based on "throw them in for X time and forgot about them" and more something like: "let's look into this more closely and let's ask ourselves what this people are gonna be, once they're out".
Currently (at least in many countries) Jails, look like places where you go to get even more broken and fucked up, no matter what you did, which is absurd, to me; even though the basic idea IS the one i'm talking about (again, to a degree).

I think some people, when they think about the concept of rehabilitation, picture a scumbag murderer, social engeneering an hippie psychologist who can't tell his as from his mouth, in a pseudo-summer camp.
 
I think life sentences and the death penalty are both barbaric. The fact of the matter is that the imprisoned mostly constitute an unjust society's victims. Criminal activity is not inherent in people. It is a product of the circumstances that society imposes on people.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
I think life sentences and the death penalty are both barbaric. The fact of the matter is that the imprisoned mostly constitute an unjust society's victims. Criminal activity is not inherent in people. It is a product of the circumstances that society imposes on people.
Are you suggesting that fair, peaceful interactions are the natural state for humans, and that society has upset this balance?
 

Orayn

Member
Are you suggesting that fair, peaceful interactions are the natural state for humans, and that society has upset this balance?

I think the implication is more that the types of crimes people commit in modern society are at least partially the cause of how modern society is set up. We have the same bad impulses, but express them differently depending on the circumstances.
 
Are you suggesting that fair, peaceful interactions are the natural state for humans, and that society has upset this balance?

I'm suggesting that maintaining an inequitable society that imposes instability on a good chunk of the population will create problems, yes, one of which is anti-social conduct.
 

Kosmo

Banned
I think life sentences and the death penalty are both barbaric. The fact of the matter is that the imprisoned mostly constitute an unjust society's victims. Criminal activity is not inherent in people. It is a product of the circumstances that society imposes on people.

Psychopathic killers - where do we put them?

I'll agree that imprisoning people for things like pot possession or minor dealing is idiotic and a colossal wasted of money.
 

jimi_dini

Member
I think life sentences and the death penalty are both barbaric. The fact of the matter is that the imprisoned mostly constitute an unjust society's victims. Criminal activity is not inherent in people. It is a product of the circumstances that society imposes on people.

Okay, and how should we handle things like humans beating other humans into wheelchairs or humans killing other humans?

Not care at all?
Or maybe tell the offender that he shouldn't do it again, "bad boy, bad boy"?
 

Kosmo

Banned
Okay, and how should we handle things like humans beating other humans into wheelchairs or humans killing other humans?

Not care at all?
Or maybe tell the offender that he shouldn't do it again, "bad boy, bad boy"?

EV's answer will be that it is not their fault that society put them in that position.
 
You can still let a wrongly convicted guy out. Once you kill him, there is no going back.
Plus, killing by the state is just barbaric.
 

jkoch

Member
A life sentence offers the possibility of exoneration based on new evidence, whereas the death penalty does not.

edit: beaten by 2 minutes lol
 
The life imprisonment vs death penalty debate seems irrelevant to me, because the death penalty is so grossly flawed, conceptually. Even without the miscarriage of justice problem, it is an insult to civilisation.

A sentence of death devalues the crime it seeks to punish. If deliberately killing someone is the worst thing a human can do, then human society should not do it. It is hypocritical barbarism, and adds uselessly to the sum of human violence.
 
Psychopathic killers - where do we put them?

Most psychopaths aren't killers. They are business executives, at least to the extent psychopathy means anything at all. (I'm skeptical of the concept.)

I'll reserve judgment on psychopathic killers until somebody can demonstrate that they exist.
 
I'm for the death penalty in theory. My view being that humanity as a species needs to purge the genepool of those that commit horrible crimes. It also serves as a warning to the rest of society and it's cheaper in theory to put a bullet between someones eyes than it is to pay for heat, food, clothes, medical for the rest of their lives.

In reality things are very very different to the point that I oppose the death penalty. The rampant racism and class bias in the criminal justice system for one. Black people in America tend to be disproportionately executed compared to whites of the same crime. And when was the last time a millionare caught a lethal injection? The fact that innocent people get put to death just because a politically ambitious prosecutor wants to look tough on crime and not have egg on his/her face because the person they were about to execute turned out to be innocent. The ridiculous appeals process that makes it MORE expensive to execute someone than it does to keep them locked up for life.
 
Most psychopaths aren't killers. They are business executives, at least to the extent psychopathy means anything at all. (I'm skeptical of the concept.)

I'll reserve judgment on psychopathic killers until somebody can demonstrate that they exist.


alg_az_shooter_mug.jpg
 
I'm for the death penalty in theory. My view being that humanity as a species needs to purge the genepool of those that commit horrible crimes.

Is there such a thing as a rapist gene? What about a serial killer gene?

If there isn't then "purging" criminals from the genepool does nothing to actually prevent crime, and the sentence seems to suggest that you support social Darwinism.

It also serves as a warning to the rest of society

But if one's likelihood to commit a heinous crime is determined by genetics then what is the point of a warning?
 
Schizophrenia is not psychopathy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy

psy·chop·a·thy   [sahy-kop-uh-thee] Show IPA
noun, plural ‐thies. Psychiatry .
1.
a mental disorder in which an individual manifests amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
2.
any mental disease.


Now we argue about the definition of psychopathy for 4 pages! Hurray!
 
Is there such a thing as a rapist gene? What about a serial killer gene?

If there isn't then "purging" criminals from the genepool does nothing to actually prevent crime.

Prevents them from reoffending and in theory, a bullet is cheaper than a life of food, medical care, entertainment, housing. In theory. In reality that's not true.



But if one's likelihood to commit a heinous crime is determined by genetics then what is the point of a warning?

Ones genetic makeup don't automatically mean a person will lack the ability to make a choice.
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy

psy·chop·a·thy   [sahy-kop-uh-thee] Show IPA
noun, plural ‐thies. Psychiatry .
1.
a mental disorder in which an individual manifests amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
2.
any mental disease.


Now we argue about the definition of psychopathy for 4 pages! Hurray!
Schizophrenia is not Psychopathy, it is a Paranoid Psychotic disorder in which the afflicted loses touch with reality. Psychopaths are very much rooted in reality, they just dont give a shit.
 
Prevents them from reoffending and in theory, a bullet is cheaper than a life of food, medical care, entertainment, housing. In theory. In reality that's not true.

Why use the term "remove from the gene pool" then?

That isn't a euphemism for killing someone. It has the implications that you think a person has negative traits that can be passed down by genes.
 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy

psy·chop·a·thy   [sahy-kop-uh-thee] Show IPA
noun, plural ‐thies. Psychiatry .
1.
a mental disorder in which an individual manifests amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.
2.
any mental disease.

Now we argue about the definition of psychopathy for 4 pages! Hurray!

There is an actual authoritative psychiatric manual for this that lays out the criteria that psychiatrists should observe before diagnosing a patient. It ain't dictionary.com. See the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition.

Maladaptive behavior that is attributable to other mental illnesses/disorders cannot be the basis of a psychopathy or anti-social personality disorder diagnosis.
 

alphaNoid

Banned
personally I favor the wood chipper of justice. Always feet first but the speed and distance are based on the severity of crime

Barbaric? fuck yea it is! RAWR.
 
personally I favor the wood chipper of justice. Always feet first but the speed and distance are based on the severity of crime

Barbaric? fuck yea it is! RAWR.

If we are going for barbarism, why not gladiator battles?

Do you really find a fucking wood chipper as exciting as a gladiator battle?
 

Cyan

Banned
personally I favor the wood chipper of justice. Always feet first but the speed and distance are based on the severity of crime

Barbaric? fuck yea it is! RAWR.

Meh. Fargo did it.

I'm with Obsessed, let's bring back some awesome gladiatorial shit.
 
Meh. Fargo did it.

I'm with Obsessed, let's bring back some awesome gladiatorial shit.

I'll admit I think I'm interested in gladiator battles mostly because the survivors are muscular men. And traditionally the outfits they wore are kind of hot. Especially if they make them go shirtless.

But I think even straight men would find the contest exciting. Who doesn't like seeing a man drive a fucking sword into the skull of a lion?
 

Stet

Banned
I'll admit I think I'm interested in gladiator battles mostly because the survivors are muscular men. And traditionally the outfits they wore are kind of hot. Especially if they make them go shirtless.

But I think even straight men would find the contest exciting. Who doesn't like seeing a man drive a fucking sword into the skull of a lion?

Other lions, I suspect.
 
A society that preaches not killing people in order to solve problems should not kill people in order to solve their problems.

Practice what you preach, that includes a government.
 
As a self-identified bleeding-heart I'm actually not opposed to capital punishment on principle(though only when enacted with the maximum humanity possible - vengeance should not enter the picture in any way). HOWEVER shit gets a little more complicated when you think about how many innocent people we've executed. It is absurd to think that a secular, democratic, people's government would ever execute an innocent man or woman. It should never, ever happen. Considering that, I think eschewing the death penalty as a means of prevention of that nightmare scenario makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom