Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

My idea for the criminal justice system.

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 3:11:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with certain aspects of this in *theory*, but as you've pointed out--it would indeed be expensive and a number of different resources would be required. Perhaps long-term, it would be worth it *if* most criminals were to effectively be reformed but otherwise it'd just be rather pointless and costly.

In addition, it would only really make sense if this was to happen towards petty criminals or those involved in drug offences. Perhaps *certain* types of rape cases could apply, but I would exclude murders--the whole point of imprisonment for that is specificaly penalization. Whereas those who have committed other types of violent crime, could well have a reasonable chance at reform.

You argue that those convicted of the 'most serious' crimes should actually be given the death penalty, fundamentally I am against this in principle but I do often wonder if it's a less-expensive option--compared to keeping the prisoner alive. If there would be adequate benefits to it, I would possibly support it.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 5:59:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.

The whole purpose of my plan is to reduce crime by reforming criminals who it is possible to reform and giving the death penalty to those who can't be reformed. I don't think it would remove the deterrent for committing crime as indefinite detention until proven reform is more of a deterrant then a short sentence with a guaranteed release date half way through the sentence. How do you see the system can be improved then? I'm sure you agree the current system is very outdated and fundamentally flawed?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 6:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 3:11:25 PM, Emilrose wrote:
I agree with certain aspects of this in *theory*, but as you've pointed out--it would indeed be expensive and a number of different resources would be required. Perhaps long-term, it would be worth it *if* most criminals were to effectively be reformed but otherwise it'd just be rather pointless and costly.

In addition, it would only really make sense if this was to happen towards petty criminals or those involved in drug offences. Perhaps *certain* types of rape cases could apply, but I would exclude murders--the whole point of imprisonment for that is specificaly penalization. Whereas those who have committed other types of violent crime, could well have a reasonable chance at reform.

You argue that those convicted of the 'most serious' crimes should actually be given the death penalty, fundamentally I am against this in principle but I do often wonder if it's a less-expensive option--compared to keeping the prisoner alive. If there would be adequate benefits to it, I would possibly support it.

In my view the prospect of indefinate imprisonment until proven reform would be more of a deterrant then the current system where criminals are often given light sentences and released half way through them. I don't claim to know that this proposal would definately save money. However when you consider the prospect of significantly reduced crime the long term implications economically would be significant. Lower sums of money spent on policing and criminal justice, more people contributing positively to the economy and less burdens to society such as petty criminals and people imprisoned for life. I agree a massive amount of resources would be needed. I would generally favour constructing new large prisons where the considerable range of prisoner reform strategies could be implicated from a single location to improve efficiency.

I agree those convicted of murder should receive a concrete sentance. As should other serious criminals such as serial sex offenders, drug lords and terrorists. These people should receive the death penalty. There is no doubt it would save thousands if not millions of pounds/ Euros/ dollars per person. These sorts of people have no right to life. It is better for the victims that they are executed and it is not fair that the ordinary taxpayer has to waste "200, 000 a year looking after a serial killer in a high security detention unit. In my view there should be four verdicts in court.

1. Innocent.
2. Given community service or equitable minor sentence or fine and 1 penalty point.
3. Sentenced indefinitely until reformed. Given a number of penalty points from 2-11 depending on the severity of the crime.
4. Given 12 penalty points.=Death penalty

Obviously in some cases criminals may commit the multiple medium level crimes required to rack up the 12 points and receive the death penalty.
mc9
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 1:05:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 11/22/2015 5:59:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.

The whole purpose of my plan is to reduce crime by reforming criminals who it is possible to reform and giving the death penalty to those who can't be reformed. I don't think it would remove the deterrent for committing crime as indefinite detention until proven reform is more of a deterrant then a short sentence with a guaranteed release date half way through the sentence. How do you see the system can be improved then? I'm sure you agree the current system is very outdated and fundamentally flawed?

Who get's to decide they aren't reformed?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 1:32:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 1:05:21 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 5:59:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.

The whole purpose of my plan is to reduce crime by reforming criminals who it is possible to reform and giving the death penalty to those who can't be reformed. I don't think it would remove the deterrent for committing crime as indefinite detention until proven reform is more of a deterrant then a short sentence with a guaranteed release date half way through the sentence. How do you see the system can be improved then? I'm sure you agree the current system is very outdated and fundamentally flawed?

Who get's to decide they aren't reformed?

I would say a pshychiatrist is needed to assess their mental state and determine if and when they have got to the stage where they have reformed their character, learned their lessons, have dealt with any mental health issues and are deemed unlikely to reoffend or pose a danger to society.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 1:43:38 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Suppose you want to commit a crime. You might get caught. Because of a reformed justice system, if you got caught you have to pay a fine, but you won't do time.
How about it, you wanna take a chance?
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 1:53:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Supposed the justice system drilled a small hole in your skull and inserted an electrode. The tip of the electrode delivers electricity to this little place in your brain where the sensation of being in pain is created. When they turn on the juice you feel a sensation that is like pain but it's more intense.
You would be very sorry you committed that crime when this happens.

Don't believe that it's possible to do this ? Ask a neurosurgeon.
mc9
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 2:00:19 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 1:32:49 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 1:05:21 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 5:59:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.

The whole purpose of my plan is to reduce crime by reforming criminals who it is possible to reform and giving the death penalty to those who can't be reformed. I don't think it would remove the deterrent for committing crime as indefinite detention until proven reform is more of a deterrant then a short sentence with a guaranteed release date half way through the sentence. How do you see the system can be improved then? I'm sure you agree the current system is very outdated and fundamentally flawed?

Who get's to decide they aren't reformed?

I would say a pshychiatrist is needed to assess their mental state and determine if and when they have got to the stage where they have reformed their character, learned their lessons, have dealt with any mental health issues and are deemed unlikely to reoffend or pose a danger to society.

If the physiciatrist makes a mistake then a person died for nothing.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 2:04:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 1:43:38 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Suppose you want to commit a crime. You might get caught. Because of a reformed justice system, got caught you have to pay a fine, but you won't do time.
How about it, you wanna take a chance?

Currently many crimes that are committed do not result in a prison sentence. In only these circumstances would I not imprison someone. They would also receive 1 penalty point. Crimes like driving without insurance, drink driving, speeding etc.

The main point of the fines I was trying make though was to also fine prisoners sent to jail.

I would be much less likely to risk breaking the law under this system.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 2:07:02 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 1:53:11 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Supposed the justice system drilled a small hole in your skull and inserted an electrode. The tip of the electrode delivers electricity to this little place in your brain where the sensation of being in pain is created. When they turn on the juice you feel a sensation that is like pain but it's more intense.
You would be very sorry you committed that crime when this happens.

Don't believe that it's possible to do this ? Ask a neurosurgeon.

I don't really favour torture. I think My methods are more effective. I believe you and agree it is possible to do that.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 2:12:50 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 2:00:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 1:32:49 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 1:05:21 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 5:59:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.

The whole purpose of my plan is to reduce crime by reforming criminals who it is possible to reform and giving the death penalty to those who can't be reformed. I don't think it would remove the deterrent for committing crime as indefinite detention until proven reform is more of a deterrant then a short sentence with a guaranteed release date half way through the sentence. How do you see the system can be improved then? I'm sure you agree the current system is very outdated and fundamentally flawed?

Who get's to decide they aren't reformed?

I would say a pshychiatrist is needed to assess their mental state and determine if and when they have got to the stage where they have reformed their character, learned their lessons, have dealt with any mental health issues and are deemed unlikely to reoffend or pose a danger to society.

If the physiciatrist makes a mistake then a person died for nothing.

Well it's much safer then the current system where prisoners are released at the end of sentences regardless of the likelihood of reoffending. Psychiatric assessment is a far safer way of releasing prisoners and will significantly reduce the number of former prisoners who commit murder after release from prison.
mc9
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 2:16:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 2:12:50 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 2:00:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 1:32:49 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 1:05:21 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 5:59:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.

The whole purpose of my plan is to reduce crime by reforming criminals who it is possible to reform and giving the death penalty to those who can't be reformed. I don't think it would remove the deterrent for committing crime as indefinite detention until proven reform is more of a deterrant then a short sentence with a guaranteed release date half way through the sentence. How do you see the system can be improved then? I'm sure you agree the current system is very outdated and fundamentally flawed?

Who get's to decide they aren't reformed?

I would say a pshychiatrist is needed to assess their mental state and determine if and when they have got to the stage where they have reformed their character, learned their lessons, have dealt with any mental health issues and are deemed unlikely to reoffend or pose a danger to society.

If the physiciatrist makes a mistake then a person died for nothing.

Well it's much safer then the current system where prisoners are released at the end of sentences regardless of the likelihood of reoffending. Psychiatric assessment is a far safer way of releasing prisoners and will significantly reduce the number of former prisoners who commit murder after release from prison.

Innocent until proven guilty, also, releasing prisoners is not the same thing as killing one.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2016 10:19:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/20/2016 2:16:49 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 2:12:50 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 2:00:19 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 1:32:49 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/20/2016 1:05:21 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 5:59:24 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:57:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/22/2015 2:08:52 PM, beng100 wrote:
In my view the world has yet to develop an effective criminal justice system. Currently many criminal justice systems around the world are focused on punishment rather then reform of criminals yet offer light sentences and early releases. I have thought of a much more effective model of a criminal justice system that places more emphasis on helping prisoners reform their character and reduce risks of further offences rather than just punishing them.

I don't believe that giving sentences to prisoners is necessarily the right approach. If sentenced to custody then the person should be detained until it is thought the chances of them offending again have been virtually eliminated. I would use counciling, psychotherapy, education and training for helping inmates to reform as well as entirely eliminating drugs from prisons.

I would give any person suffering from addiction or mental health issues the help they need to get over their problems. The reality I'd most criminals are suffering from some sort of problem. I would suggest that only when it is deemed the person is fully recovered from their problems that release should be considered. If it is deemed the person will never recover and therefore unsafe to release then they should receive the death penalty. Criminals convicted of the most serious crimes should also receive the death penalty immediately on the basis there act of crime was so severe that they do not deserve the chance to reform.

I would also introduce a criminal licence system where I would give people penalty points for each crime they commit. The severity of the crime would determine how many points they receive. A certain number of points in a lifetime would trigger a death penalty.

I would also introduce some kind of work for prisoners to undertake. Either in line with their previous work or something similar to a realistic career path they want to pursue after leaving prison.

I acknowledge these ideas would be more expensive then currently used correctional methods but they would in the long term save money. These measures would drastically reduce petty crime, violent crime and drug and gang culture. They would also allow the authorities to treat each case individually and not left to stand by when a petty criminals sentence expires and they are released into society for the 5th time. My plans also mean that dangerous individuals and the most serious offenders are executed. This prevents them from ever reoffending and eliminated the need to keep them in high security prisons. Ultimately lifetime captivity is inhumane and pointless. It achieves nothing. Long term my measures would actually save money in addition to massively reducing crime.

Thoughts and opinions?

I highly doubt that's the direction in which criminal justice will proceed in the future. The emergent field of neurolaw will, in time, rock the foundations of retributive justice. It's in its infancy at present, and chiefly concerns things like confabulation in witness testimony, lie detector tests, and adduction of fMRI results. But eventually, I suspect they're going to push a more causal/functional system of justice in every instance that volition is erroneously assumed.

If you ask almost any neuroscientist (and I have), there's pretty broad consensus that human behavior and decision making are both neurophysiologically determined and highly manipulable. Basically if you start educating lawyers about the brain ... eventually the concept of free will is bound to be thrown out, at first in legal literature, and eventually in the law itself.

The flaw in your proposal is that you gravitate away from the causal/functional use of punishment to deter and reform, to pointless a pointless retributive response (particularly in your reason for using the death penalty).... and that is scientifically backwards.

The whole purpose of my plan is to reduce crime by reforming criminals who it is possible to reform and giving the death penalty to those who can't be reformed. I don't think it would remove the deterrent for committing crime as indefinite detention until proven reform is more of a deterrant then a short sentence with a guaranteed release date half way through the sentence. How do you see the system can be improved then? I'm sure you agree the current system is very outdated and fundamentally flawed?

Who get's to decide they aren't reformed?

I would say a pshychiatrist is needed to assess their mental state and determine if and when they have got to the stage where they have reformed their character, learned their lessons, have dealt with any mental health issues and are deemed unlikely to reoffend or pose a danger to society.

If the physiciatrist makes a mistake then a person died for nothing.

Well it's much safer then the current system where prisoners are released at the end of sentences regardless of the likelihood of reoffending. Psychiatric assessment is a far safer way of releasing prisoners and will significantly reduce the number of former prisoners who commit murder after release from prison.

Innocent until proven guilty, also, releasing prisoners is not the same thing as killing one.

Agree hence anyone given any form of judicial penalty would be tried by a panel of trained professionals qualified in determining the guilt of individuals rather than random members of the public as is done currently. Agree releasing prisoners and executing them are polar opposites. Some prisoners are safe to release others never are or will be.