Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Life Imprisonment

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:18:46 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker presents an interesting case, and, really, the kind of case in which an act of vigilante justice would be morally acceptable.

It would be interesting if someone made a thread about that. It raises many pressing philosophical issues.

Really, Batman is the most complex of the run-of-the-mill DC comic superheroes, and probably my favorite for that reason.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:26:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:18:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker presents an interesting case, and, really, the kind of case in which an act of vigilante justice would be morally acceptable.

It would be interesting if someone made a thread about that. It raises many pressing philosophical issues.

Really, Batman is the most complex of the run-of-the-mill DC comic superheroes, and probably my favorite for that reason.

This is very very true. That should be a debate, "Batman should have executed the Joker"
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:54:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

+100000 ; agree with every word ^

pls become dictator for a day
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:03:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

I believe that any crime that requires life without parole should actually be a death sentence instead. If it's serious enough to lock them up for life, it's serious enough to warrant the death penalty.
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:25:01 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:03:35 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

I believe that any crime that requires life without parole should actually be a death sentence instead. If it's serious enough to lock them up for life, it's serious enough to warrant the death penalty.

Well the same logic would obviously apply to a death penalty. And the death penalty should be abolished for various other reasons anyways
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:45:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:26:21 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:18:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker presents an interesting case, and, really, the kind of case in which an act of vigilante justice would be morally acceptable.

It would be interesting if someone made a thread about that. It raises many pressing philosophical issues.

Really, Batman is the most complex of the run-of-the-mill DC comic superheroes, and probably my favorite for that reason.

This is very very true. That should be a debate, "Batman should have executed the Joker"

Some of my earlier work but it's still relevant.

http://www.debate.org...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:59:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:26:21 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:18:46 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker presents an interesting case, and, really, the kind of case in which an act of vigilante justice would be morally acceptable.

It would be interesting if someone made a thread about that. It raises many pressing philosophical issues.

Really, Batman is the most complex of the run-of-the-mill DC comic superheroes, and probably my favorite for that reason.

This is very very true. That should be a debate, "Batman should have executed the Joker"

Execution maybe not... but Batman should really get over himself and kill the joker.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:19:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker does not deserve "punishment," because he would easily win in an insanity defense. He needs to undergo treatment or be placed in a high-security psychiatric treatment center.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 2:20:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

What about recidivism of, for instance, homicide?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:06:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:19:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker does not deserve "punishment," because he would easily win in an insanity defense. He needs to undergo treatment or be placed in a high-security psychiatric treatment center.

In the comics, Joker has actually been labeled as possessing "super sanity," such that he is more rationale and clear-headed about existence than others. I mean, you'd have to be crazy to think what happens in that universe is normal, right lol
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:08:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:06:52 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:19:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker does not deserve "punishment," because he would easily win in an insanity defense. He needs to undergo treatment or be placed in a high-security psychiatric treatment center.

In the comics, Joker has actually been labeled as possessing "super sanity," such that he is more rationale and clear-headed about existence than others. I mean, you'd have to be crazy to think what happens in that universe is normal, right lol

"Super sanity" is also a mental disability, since the unclearly defined "mental illness" basically refers to psychology different from the norm
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 3:20:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 3:08:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 3:06:52 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:19:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker does not deserve "punishment," because he would easily win in an insanity defense. He needs to undergo treatment or be placed in a high-security psychiatric treatment center.

In the comics, Joker has actually been labeled as possessing "super sanity," such that he is more rationale and clear-headed about existence than others. I mean, you'd have to be crazy to think what happens in that universe is normal, right lol

"Super sanity" is also a mental disability, since the unclearly defined "mental illness" basically refers to psychology different from the norm

Yeah, Batman didn't buy it either.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 4:21:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Harsher prison sentences have been shown to reduce crime. People do re-offend, and keeping them in prison, prevents that from happening. Now as far as petty crimes are concerned, I do think society would be better off if these people could join society again, to help raise their kids or to be productive members of society. It's why I support judicial corporal punishment.
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 5:00:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:20:13 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

What about recidivism of, for instance, homicide?

For violent criminals, it could work like Norway's criminal rehab system, which utilizes psychological evaluations to determine the probability of recidivism. "With few exceptions (for genocide and war crimes mostly), judges can only sentence criminals to a maximum of 21 years. At the end of the initial term, however, five-year increments can be added onto to the prisoner's sentence every five years, indefinitely, if the system determines he or she isn't rehabilitated" [http://www.businessinsider.com...]
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 7:26:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:19:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker does not deserve "punishment," because he would easily win in an insanity defense. He needs to undergo treatment or be placed in a high-security psychiatric treatment center.

Tru
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 7:37:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 7:26:23 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:19:42 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:15:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools and churches, that kind of thing...

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

I agree. There is that 0.000001%. Like the Joker, wtf, he ain't never gonna get better

The Joker does not deserve "punishment," because he would easily win in an insanity defense. He needs to undergo treatment or be placed in a high-security psychiatric treatment center.

Tru

The Joker has been placed in Arkham Asylum - the hospital for all of Batman's criminally insane villains - dozens of times. It was during one of his treatments that he twisted the mind of one of his doctors, transforming her into his mad sidekick, Harley Quinn.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 8:23:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

No I don't think life imprisonment serves any purpose and I agree someone willing to apologize and reform should receive far more lenient treatment. I have a completely unique view on criminal justice.

http://www.debate.org...

These measures in my view would significantly reduce crime which should be the main aim of a criminal justice system and in the long run will save money and make society a safer place.
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 8:58:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

That's not a very good analogy. Life imprisonment punishes much more extreme crimes than cheating on a test. A 23-year-old murderer deserves the same punishment as a 62-year-old murderer. It doesn't matter what their attitude towards their crime is; a murderer of any age and of any attitude is dangerous and should be kept away from society.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 10:19:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 8:58:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

That's not a very good analogy. Life imprisonment punishes much more extreme crimes than cheating on a test. A 23-year-old murderer deserves the same punishment as a 62-year-old murderer. It doesn't matter what their attitude towards their crime is; a murderer of any age and of any attitude is dangerous and should be kept away from society.

That's not what I meant, you're misinterpreting it. Read it again
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 10:32:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

A sentence is for misconduct occurring prior to sentencing. Good conduct occurring after sentencing isn't all that relevant.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 11:03:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

I agree.

However, I think life imprisonment should be used, but only reserved for the severest of criminals (i.e. serial killers). Obviously a person can change, but it's also important for the law enforcement/prison system to observe the offenders to see if they have changed. It wouldn't make sense to release a murder of whom they have not noted any change in cynical demeanor.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 11:17:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 2:13:11 AM, YYW wrote:
There are many who labor under the mistaken belief that harsher punishments reduce crime. The reality is that changing social conditions is the only way to reduce crime. Investing in low-income communities, community building, building schools, and churches, that kind of thing...

Had to add the Oxford comma. ;P

I don't like the idea of life in prison for anyone other than the worst of the worst. Serial killers, mainly. Perhaps warlords. But that's it. I wouldn't have harsher sentences beyond 20 years or so, were I the one in charge of the criminal justice system, in almost all cases.

I generally agree. Harsh sentences are necessary, though, for those whose mindset would take longer to change... I think that you don't give enough credit to the prison system, though. Sure, there are other methods we could fund that would do a more adequate job of reforming criminals. But, prisons have their place as well, particularly for younger criminals. If they act idiotically (which they would be more inclined to do), then a prison sentence would definitely give them a jolt and jar their perception of life (and criminal activity). The other forms would do well in terms of preliminary prevention, but it's equally important to use prison sentences when applicable to the situation and where they can be effective.

Although financial crimes (i.e. what Bernie Madoff did) would likely carry penalties around that 20 year mark.

I would also decriminalize all drugs, release all drug offenders other than those who were also convicted for violent crimes, and uniformly send them to halfway houses to learn trades to that once they got out, they would be less likely to reoffend.

While personally I don't agree with decriminalizing drugs, wouldn't you say preliminary steps could be taken within prisons as well? Why can't they be taught trades inside the prison, with a focus on reforming their lives rather than outright punishment? I'd probably support a scheme where (if they had violent sentences of like 10 years or more) the first 5ish years was punishment (more uniform, straightforward prison life) and the other half was spent utilizing the time in prison to learn what life should be like.

But all of that will never happen. There are too many dumb, emotionally volatile people who think that long prison sentences are the way to go... it's very sad.

Well, I think it's a stretch to say people who think long prison sentences are "emotionally volatile." They have their place, they just don't fit every circumstance and sometimes shouldn't be quite as long as they are.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 11:20:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 4:21:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Harsher prison sentences have been shown to reduce crime. People do re-offend, and keeping them in prison, prevents that from happening. Now as far as petty crimes are concerned, I do think society would be better off if these people could join society again, to help raise their kids or to be productive members of society. It's why I support judicial corporal punishment.

I agree. I think some, are too harsh, but harsh prison sentences generally have benefit. Law enforcement simply needs to be wary and recognize when harsh sentences are conducive to public good and the situation at hand, and when it's not.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2016 11:31:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 10:19:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 8:58:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

That's not a very good analogy. Life imprisonment punishes much more extreme crimes than cheating on a test. A 23-year-old murderer deserves the same punishment as a 62-year-old murderer. It doesn't matter what their attitude towards their crime is; a murderer of any age and of any attitude is dangerous and should be kept away from society.

That's not what I meant, you're misinterpreting it. Read it again

How do you think I should have interpreted it?
I don't have a signature. :-)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 2:26:08 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 11:31:37 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/29/2016 10:19:32 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/29/2016 8:58:57 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 2/29/2016 2:05:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
Life imprisonment means no chance of release, the person will die behind bars. Is this justified? Can someone change? Imagine two students cheated on a math test together. The first student confesses to the crime, apologizes, swears to never do it again in their life. The other student blatantly lies about cheating in the face of overwhelming evidence. Isn"t it fair to say that the second child should have a harsher punishment than the first? Why then would we not regard one person at two stages of their life (23 and 62 for example), with completely different attitudes towards their crime as deserving of different consideration? What do you guys think?

That's not a very good analogy. Life imprisonment punishes much more extreme crimes than cheating on a test. A 23-year-old murderer deserves the same punishment as a 62-year-old murderer. It doesn't matter what their attitude towards their crime is; a murderer of any age and of any attitude is dangerous and should be kept away from society.

That's not what I meant, you're misinterpreting it. Read it again

How do you think I should have interpreted it?

The extremity of punishment does not matter in the entire metaphor because its a metaphor. Based on your objection, in the analogy, should both students recieve the same punishment then? That seems to be what you are arguing, they still did the crime and thus should have the punishment
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 3:58:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 11:20:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/29/2016 4:21:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Harsher prison sentences have been shown to reduce crime. People do re-offend, and keeping them in prison, prevents that from happening. Now as far as petty crimes are concerned, I do think society would be better off if these people could join society again, to help raise their kids or to be productive members of society. It's why I support judicial corporal punishment.

I agree. I think some, are too harsh, but harsh prison sentences generally have benefit. Law enforcement simply needs to be wary and recognize when harsh sentences are conducive to public good and the situation at hand, and when it's not.

Law enforcement has no control over sentencing guidelines. They aren't a part of the court system at all.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 4:58:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/29/2016 5:00:57 PM, Romaniii wrote:
For violent criminals, it could work like Norway's criminal rehab system, which utilizes psychological evaluations to determine the probability of recidivism. "With few exceptions (for genocide and war crimes mostly), judges can only sentence criminals to a maximum of 21 years. At the end of the initial term, however, five-year increments can be added onto to the prisoner's sentence every five years, indefinitely, if the system determines he or she isn't rehabilitated" [http://www.businessinsider.com...]

That sounds very interesting. I'll read into it, but given that this would work, I'd agree with the proposal.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass