ClumsyMonkey.net

You can argue 100% certainty with everything though. I'm against taking human life. Therefore, I am against Capital Punishment.

there are a lot of 100% ways of knowing. Let's say someone filmed me as I wanted to document every moment leading up to and including a massacre and then after the bloodbath I could be interviewed with blood on me and the gun in my hand.

There are countless ways of knowing whether someone is guilty.

what if the videos are doctored? or what if it's jsut someone that looks eerily similar to you? what if you were going to go hunting and had a gun on your hand. There is always a possibility that they can be wrong, and i am not willing to take any risk when it comes to taking an innocent person's life - or anyone elses life for that matter.

J-Neli wrote:

Rusty wrote:I'd just like to say it was so nice of you people to actually read what I took the time to actually research and post about what the purpose of jail is.

J-Neli wrote:Once you're dead, that's it. It doesn't matter if you lived or not. I mean you can believe in an afterlife if you want to but once you are dead you don't care. It's not like after dying you regret everything you've done and want to live again. (this is of course from a non-spiritual aspect, beliefs of an afterlife cannot be prooved.)

Why keep someone alive if it is unnecessary? What good is it for a man to be in jail for life with no chance of parole? What are you socializing him for? He can't be released. if prison is in place to resocialize, and an individual will never be released, than isn't it unnecessary?

As I said in my post before, if you would kindly take the time to read it thank you. Prison is also used for punishment and to protect society by keeping prisoners locked up.

Actually I did read it Rusty. If you look a few pages back I commented about how I felt the text book was using a very old and outdated source. You then posted an updated section from the same text explaining the stages of imprisonment. Unfortunately, its blatantly apparent that these stages are not working, and I believe if you read any of the stuff I posted earlier you would have noticed the large population of repeat offenders that use the prison system as a revolving door.

Anyways though about prison being used for punishment and to protect society... wouldn't the death penalty serve the same purpose only it would ensure the greatest punishment and the greatest safety? I mean think about it, no need for people to worry whether someone is getting the proper punishment, no need to worry about jail breaks or plea bargains or anything else that could arise.

If you read it carefully, it aslo states that the three main aspects have remained the same. Also if you read the updated one. You would notice how I said most prisoners don't get the counselling they need that would rehabilitate them properly. Also the ones getting the least rehabilitation are the ones with higher statistics of re-commiting a crime that Matt posted. Also crime rates are dropping in Canada so something has to be working right. Also Canada doesn't have the death penalty, but yet crime rates are dropping hmmm. Also it's mostly the older generation that are using prisons as revolving door systems. They age in jail and jail becomes their family, and they can't cope outside. They fear two things "dying in jail and being out of jail." The last bit about senior citizens was taken from an article in Macleans magazine by the way, I don't have a reference with me at the moment, but surely you will forgive me? Also plea bargains take place before the suspect goes to the jury. They are used in exchange to get further information from the suspect in return for a lighter sentence. Also I see you didn't have any comment about the human rights point I made. Such as the right to live. Nobody has the right to legally decide who may live and who may die. To place someone in a courtroom and debate whether they can live or not is absurd. People do not have that kind of power. That's doing the exact same thing that the suspect is there for. Plotting someone's death. The excuse to save room or money by killing people is morbid. While were at it, we might as well kill the homeless people too. They just take up room on the streets, bother people, and waste taxpayers money by us having shelters for them. Should they be killed too to save money? The minute we start using capital punishment as a means to save money, save time, make things "easier" we enter a very dark and scary era.

kermit__35 wrote:what if the videos are doctored? or what if it's jsut someone that looks eerily similar to you? what if you were going to go hunting and had a gun on your hand. There is always a possibility that they can be wrong, and i am not willing to take any risk when it comes to taking an innocent person's life - or anyone elses life for that matter.

what about exact discriptions? how do you discredit a man's confession when the science proves that he did it? you can't even get found guilty of speeding without an eyewitness. along with film there has to be an eyewitness. (in speeding cases the cop is the eyewitness)

Cracky wrote:You draw the line by what they've done. Say a man kills someone, and goes to prison. He's in the general population, and he doesnt cause a fight or anything. 25 years later, he's out, without a fuss or anything. He's gone back into the world, and nothing else happens. A man like that, doesnt warrant solitary confinement.

A man who committed many crimes, goes into the general prison population with life without parole. As Reno said, they know they're gonna be there awhile, so they stir it up. Trouble making, riots, whatever. They cause fights, seriously injure people, perhaps rape them, and then murder someone else.

A person like that, deserves solitary confinement. They have no respect, for anything and anyone. If they've killed or seriously harmed people, they deserve the mental torture.

I disagree with physical torture in that, a second party would have to be present, to inflict it. Mental torture is all in ones head. You have to do a sufficient amount of damage to get solitary confinement.

Besides, look at Clifford Olson. He murdered alot of young children around the lower mainland and vancouver island in the 70's and 80's, and then buried them in Richmonds nature park. He is in solitary confinement, because others pose a threat to his life should he be in the general population. He has a computer and a TV in his cell. He isnt mad. Well, not any moreso than when he entered prison.

a man like in the first paragraph doesn't deserve the death penalty, so that argument is redundant. he get's anywhere between 20-life with parole. in Texas, there's no life with parole, but it doesn't matter because someone is still dead.

the man in the second pargraph is a man that is no good to society. so he should be dead. the problem with keeping him in the general prison population is that innocent people will be killed in his riots and trouble making. guards and police are people who are just doing their job, and should not in anyway get assulted. everytime you put a seriously bad guy in the general population, your increasing the dangers that this job demands. good men with families are going to be die because you refused to kill the scum of the world.

now why on god's green earth would you inflict mental tourture on a man that's probably mentally incapacitated anyhow? what does that do, but continually fuel this man's insanity? what do you do with him once he's subdued.....put him back in the general prison population? or back on the streets maybe? if he's no good and warrants prison time, then after the mental tourture he's not going to be better. people have to inflict mental torture too. how can a person inflict mental tourture and come home to his family? a person that kille people that warrant many reasons for death can come home and say i'm making sure my family/this world is safe.

But who are we to decide who should be alive and who should not be?

we are society, we do what we need to do in order to make sure the future isn't crap.

ask yourself what gives society the right to govern itself. ask yourself what gives society the right to pass/enforce laws, or to regulate itself and hold itself to a certain standard.

See, you argue that a man who suffers mental torture because he's locked in Solitary, will make him more unstable and violent when he gets out. Fair enough, except i'm talking about people who will never ever see the light of day again.

Death is the easy way out.

what's the point of keeping him alive in solitary confinement for the rest of his life?

Thanks reno. I gave up on it because it was getting tiring fighting 3 against 1

Bandalero wrote:now why on god's green earth would you inflict mental tourture on a man that's probably mentally incapacitated anyhow? what does that do, but continually fuel this man's insanity? what do you do with him once he's subdued.....put him back in the general prison population? or back on the streets maybe? if he's no good and warrants prison time, then after the mental tourture he's not going to be better. people have to inflict mental torture too. how can a person inflict mental tourture and come home to his family? a person that kille people that warrant many reasons for death can come home and say i'm making sure my family/this world is safe.

Now here in Canada the worst thing you can do to someone is put them in jail for the rest of their life. My school just recently had a guest speaker come in, who was in jail for 25 years. This is what he had to say "The worst thing you could possibly to someone is put them in jail for life." Contrary to popular belief jail isn't all sunshine and lollypops. When you go in it's really rough, there are really strict rules, if you want to move anywhere you are handcuffed and then you have your legs shackled, and a couple of guards walk with you. Solitary is an awful place. Then you are totally isolated, you have nobody you are alone 24/7. In a small, cement box. The mental anguish is unbearable. You have to sit there and you just think about what you did to get in there. Then you go to bed everynight knowing that when you wake up the next day will be exactly the same as the last. There is no "tomorrow is another day" when you're in jail, especially solitary. Everyday is a repeat of the day before. You grow old in jail, and age is what rehabilitates you. You start to realise you've wasted your entire life, and then you wish for death. But you can't have it, day after day it all repeats.

"a person that kille people that warrant many reasons for death can come home and say i'm making sure my family/this world is safe." That person must also go home and say "today I just killed a man." Could you live with the fact that you killed someone? Maybe you've killed many people and you justify it by saying "he killed other people, i'm protecting society." Now matter how you look at it, the death penalty is murder, and those that inflict it are murderers. Justifying it with "the law" is just a form of rationalization. For those of you who need clarification, rationalization is a defence mechanism where we make up reasons as to why our actions are justifiable.

Bandalero wrote:

what's the point of keeping him alive in solitary confinement for the rest of his life?

He's commited horrible horrible crimes.

Commit the crime and do the time.

Cracky wrote:

Bandalero wrote:

what's the point of keeping him alive in solitary confinement for the rest of his life?

He's commited horrible horrible crimes.

Commit the crime and do the time.

understandable, however, what your telling me is that if a crime is so vile and repulsive to the public, that it deems a horrible punishment that isn't humane in any sense? why should you put a man through torture to prove a point? putting someone to death tells me that society does not see it necessary that this one individual live. what does torture prove? we should be humane about this.

every thing that man told you rusty is opinion. it's his opinion that being in a place where life becomes repetitive is worse than death. people think going to work everyday is worse than death. were not looking for a punishment that needs to be excessive or extreme, were looking for a certain punishment that fits certain crimes. i personally think nothing merits mental anguish.

I know it's kinda off topic but what do you guys think about punishment of criminals that are proven to have mental disabilities such as sociopathes?

Any Pych students opinions would be intresting.

People were pissed here in Texas or at Texas because a guy was on death row and he had the capacity of a 9 year old.

but i was like, at 9, you should know that killing is wrong right?

it depends what the particulars of his situation are, if he's just simply has the mind of a 9 year then maybe i can understand your point. But if there's other mental deficiancies, then it gets into some pretty murky territory.

Technically a Sociopath does not have an understanding of right and wrong, or of what the consequences of their actions are. Sociopaths do not show emotional responses to other people, to them they litterally are the center of the universe and we do not exist except as objects. Which brings up the argument that can a person who views us nearly the same as inanimate objects have cruel or evil motivations? To be guilty, at least in Canada, a person has to be considered legally sane. Which means in legal terms having an understanding of ones actions.

thats not to say these criminals should be let loose on the population, they need to be institutionalized, but treated fairly as any other person suffering from a mental illness would be.

Bandalero wrote:i personally think nothing merits mental anguish.

What about the mental anguish of knowing you are going to be murdered? Those who are sentenced to death just sit in a cell day by day waiting for years until that fateful day when they are tied down to a table and a needle is stuck into their arm. To me that is the worst mental anguish of all. Sitting there counting down the days until you will be taken away and murdered.

In response to the sociopath comment someone posted. Most sociopaths have no idea what they are doing. It is a mental illness, that compells them to do it. There is something wrong in their minds. Those who are not legally sane should not be put to death, they should be institionalized in a mental hospital. They obviously need help and they can recieve help from an institution like that. If a way can be discovered to help people like that, then maybe society could prevent more murders from sociopaths happening as well.