First off not all "criminals" are violent offenders and need any type of physical action. But Im talking about the death penalty and extreme cases where it might save an officers life if no action was taken. I recently lost a young teenage family member to a random shooting. I work hard for my money and when they catch this monster who did this I dont want a penny of my taxes going to him being comfortable in jail and prison the next 40 or so years hes alive.
Because so many criminals are unpredictable, it is important that our police force use necessary force to subdue criminals. If they do not, the criminal may easily be able to overcome the officer.
Physical force is justifiable, depending on the situation. At times, police officers have to use extreme force when dealing with raids, mobs and protests, especially if the situation gets out of hand. Also, physical force is necessary if the criminal is not cooperating, and is a danger to the officers or other people around them. Physical force is not justifiable when police or other law officials use it as a means of punishing, just to be cruel.
With some criminals, you just have to use physical force. It needs to be a threat because nothing else will make them listen. They are just going to do what they want unless they know that physical force could be their punishment. It basically keeps everyone in line and makes them more likely to stay out of trouble.
Convicted criminals who have been incarcerated and feel they have nothing to lose can pose a danger to prison guards and staff. Specific protocols for subduing violent inmates with the least risk of damage to the inmate and staff is necessary to maintain order in jails and prisons.
A criminal who has not yet been apprehended and is threatening the safety of citizens and police is extremely dangerous. It is in the interest of the public good to put the safety of law abiding citizens over that of the violent criminal.
Criminals are getting out of control. They are getting more dangerous and brave. I think part of this is due to the fact that they know their punishment is not going to be that severe. I think in cases such as murder, assault or abuse, maybe the criminals should get to experience exactly what they did to the victim for themselves. Do to them what they did to others. Maybe this would discourage some of their behavior. The justice system has gotten too soft on criminals.
I wouldn't trust prison employees to apply force judiciously. I can imagine a lot of abuse if this were allowed. Other than forcibly restraining prisoners behind bars, I see no reason to use force in handling or punishing prisoners. Force used for its own sake is just cruelty, thus unconstitutional.
Justice has gradually evolved from mere punitive beatings and reciprocal penalties, to more sophisticated and civil means. The purpose of punishing criminals is to deter others from following their footsteps, to compensate those who have been hurt, and to reform them for future good behavior. Physical punishment only accomplishes the first, and it does so in a way which might create bigger problems from those desperate to avoid physical pain. Even worse, it makes those who must inflict the punishment stoop to the levels of those they would hope to reform.
I do think that physical force is a justifiable method for punishing criminals. I think that any force besides death or serious injury is acceptable. I also believe that if you do a crime that the same exact crime should be done to you. Like if you rape someone you should be raped.
Harsher punishments are the only answer to the rampant crime that is sweeping our nation. Many countries use physical force as a method of punishment for crimes and I think that we have to begin thinking outside the box to come up with some solutions to put a dent in the crime rates that are exploding across our county. I believe that fear of certain punishment deters crime. The problem is a lot of our punishments are delayed or never happen.
When employing force as a consideration for punishment of criminals, a few essential elements must be weighed in order to make the practice an acceptable and legal one. Of course, the most fundamental consideration centers on the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution which clearly prohibits the practice of cruel and unusual punishment. With this in mind, the type of force administered and when that force is administered must be clearly defined with no room for error. The punishment must also be administered in an appropriate manner with oversight and supervision. Ultimately, the force should be reserved for the most serious of offenses that are blatant and violate the personal rights of another individual. The most extreme case of this should be the use of the death penalty, which is reserved for high crimes such as murder and treason. In the end, rehabilitation should still remain the first option.
I believe that physical force is a good use of punishment against criminals. This is because once the criminal gets physically beat, they will understand only then the true consequences of messing with the law. This in return will cause them to think twice the next time they try to commit an act of crime against anyone, knowing that the consequences can be horrendous. In fact, I believe that the criminals should be beat so bad that they wouldn't even think about doing any act of wrong.
In some cases, I believe using physical force is the only way to get a criminals attention. If this is the only way a law officer believes he can subdue the criminal, I feel that he is within his rights to use physical force. In cases where innocent citizens may be at risk, I think this is especially true.
I am a big believer that criminals should pay for their crimes. But, that does not include physical force. Prisoners get enough violence in prison from other inmates, and they do not need physical force as part of the prison punishment program. They should be given incentive to change their lives for the better, instead of getting beat up.
I feel that using physical force as a punishment for criminals opens a very dangerous door, in regards to how not only criminals, but suspects, are treated. Also, I do not feel that criminals that are incarcerated for non-violent crimes should be subject to a punishment that is more severe than their crimes.
I do not believe that physical force is a humane way to punish criminals. Even if I did, we know that physical punishment, such as the death penalty, does not deter future criminals. It also does not address the reasons behind why a person committed a crime in the first place. Because of these two reasons, physical force is not justifiable in any way.
Physical force may be necessary to capture or restrain a criminal. However, once that is accomplished, punishment should have some rational motivation, such as retaining the person in custody or teaching him some lesson about life. Otherwise, it accomplishes nothing, although it may feel good to give "an eye for an eye". Physical force or violence reinforces to the criminal that this is the way society works and may even encourage those tendencies in the one doing the punishing.
When someone commits a crime they don't suddenly become non-human. Everyone deserves respect and using physical force will never be the answer. Punishing criminals physically will only lead to more violent and sadistic acts. This will lead to criminals not caring if they can go back into society and blend like everyone else because they will feel like they weren't treated fairly.
Physical force may have to be used to arrest or detain a criminal, but not for punishing them. This would be called torture. In a society where individuals don't have the right to physically confront one another, physical punishment would not hold up the values of the masses. It is also not necessary since there are other options in place for punishing criminals.
Although I do believe that criminals should be punished in some ways I do not agree that physical force should be one of them. Physical force to detain a criminal is another story. That I do believe in. There is no person on this earth that has the right to put there hands on another person as a method of punishment. Those who do so should be treated as criminals. There are other means possible to punish a criminal. Confinement, lack of freedom and physical labor are a few that I believe in.
Their are good enough reasons not to punish criminals in a way that could affect their health. Using violence on criminals is not a good way to treat them even if they committed a serious crime. They should use a safer and securer method as in 24/7 lock down and parental supervision.
Physical force is never a justifiable method for punishing criminals as it is archaic and serves to promote the most negative aspects of humanity as a whole. There are dozens of appropriate punishments for criminal activity that do not infringe on human rights of the condemned and do not lower the decency of society as a whole.
If everywhere was an economic opportunity without resorting to crime, we would have less crime. Most of the time, its because money is important, that earning it by the normal means is a slow arduous and almost pointless cause. Beating the criminals only says, don't do this, but you still have to find a job to make ends meet.
We already know that excessive corporeal punishment of children is a known risk factor for criminality, so doing "more of the same" on known criminals seems likely to make it even worse. I read a report on the anti-spanking website nospank.net that claimed that in questioning those who have committed a violent felony before the age of 16, 100 percent of the felons had been subject to corporeal punishment. Rather than continuing familial abuse in the justice system, the best (though admittedly not that great) way to reduce recidivism is to educate felons in prison. No one can learn in a violent environment.
I do not agree with using physical force to punish criminals. I feel that being violent with criminals only increases their violent behaviors. Physical force should be used when a criminal is immediately threatening a persons life and safety and this is the only method to subdue them. I fee that criminals need order and discipline. The need to be taught that violence got them nowhere in life, the only time to be violent some one is threatening you life or liberty. I think criminals should have to work for privileges and when their behavior is inappropriate they should lose those privileges and understand that their actions have consequences.
It has been shown that using physical force is not an effective deterrent to prevent the commission of crimes. The only purpose of using physical force to punish a criminal is to perform an act of cruelty to the criminal. The problem with this is that physical force does not teach or reform and can actually promote the urge to perform more crime.
I do not think that physical punishment can be justified in any case. The purpose of the state is to be the model for how we should behave, you can't tell someone that hitting or killing another is illegal and then use the same thing on them as punishment. It works the same way with children. It doesn't teach a lesson, it simply makes one made, seek revenge and/or be a more cunning criminal. The only time violence is justified in the prison system is as a means of self defense.