Do we need harsher punishment for violent criminals in the US?

[PrinceofWands]

Execute anyone convicted of three violent felonies. People like that are clearly incapable of ever functioning as law-abiding members of society.

BTW, whenever I have second thoughts about the DP I just watch a documentary or read an article about prisons such as Pelican Bay in California. We spend an insane amount of money trying to keep scumbag gangbangers from harming others, yet even in our harshest prisons they continue to order violence against others. It's crazy that we spend so much money on keeping worthless people alive when we could just kill them. I am so sick and tired of this ridiculous notion that everybody's life has value.

This. Decriminalize a lot of victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc) and execute (cheaply) for three violent convictions.

 

[airdata]

It's a case by case basis thing.

I posted in the 15 year old tried as adult thread because it really is BS. I think at 15 years old, they have time to rehabilitate him and help him re enter society.

But if you try that 15 year old as an adult, you're not actually practicing law... you're pretending. Trying as an adult means that you're pretending he's an adult and not just 15.

You send a 15 year old off to prison, chances are he's not coming out a better person or as somebody able to function in society. You're probably just creating a guy who is going to come to your house and rape and kill your wife instead.

 

[Siddhartha]

are you serious?

If you look at the chart, see link below, you will see that crime rates peaked and are going down. For example, Aggravated assault peaked in 1992 at 442 per 100,000 and has gone down to 263 per 100,000 in 2009. That is a decrease of around 40%.

My questioning Nemesis' seriousness had to do with his\her statement that criminals were publishing crime rate data. Basically he\she was saying that the FBI and US DOJ are controlled by criminals. Either he\she was joking or is seriously crazy.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, we need to kill people who believe in vengeance.

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh no, couldn't have anything to do with the fact that someone that assaults someone, robs them and beats them within an inch of their life, or rapes someone, or you take someones life can be out in five years.

Then why are they advocating hacking off pensis instead of longer jail sentences? Do you want longer jail sentences or the government to stark hacking off appendages? What is the difference between the person who advocates one versus the other?

- wolf

 

[ichy]

Yes, we need to kill people who believe in vengeance.

It's called retributive justice. I don't feel bad at all about admitting that I support making people who have committed terrible crimes suffer. I'd like to hope that it's a deterrent, but even if it's not I believe that retribution is a worthwhile goal. There are people whose actions demonstrate such a level of depravity, such utter disregard for any standards of morality or civilized behavior that they deserve to die, and I believe we have a moral obligation to kill them.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's called retributive justice. I don't feel bad at all about admitting that I support making people who have committed terrible crimes suffer. I'd like to hope that it's a deterrent, but even if it's not I believe that retribution is a worthwhile goal. There are people whose actions demonstrate such a level of depravity, such utter disregard for any standards of morality or civilized behavior that they deserve to die, and I believe we have a moral obligation to kill them.

Your belief is quite typical. It is possible because you have no self understanding. You have no idea why people do horrible things or why you hate them for it.

As children some folk are so destroyed by violence they grow up with a compulsion to kill, to make others suffer what they forget happened to them. So stupid you, not remembering that you got the same treatment as a child, but probably not so bad, feel violence for that part of your child that was just like the killer. You and he were made to hate yourselves, him so bad he acts out, and you, with your unconscious hate of yourself projected on him. And in your ignorance you think that the fear of more violence you were threatened with will stop him. No, he had that more violence long ago and it made him a killer. What you want to do is give people more of what destroyed them to make them behave. If you really want to stop hideous people from committing violence on society make sure all the children are loved. Teach them how to forgive so they can forgive themselves.

 

[xj0hnx]

Then why are they advocating hacking off pensis instead of longer jail sentences? Do you want longer jail sentences or the government to stark hacking off appendages? What is the difference between the person who advocates one versus the other?

- wolf

Pretty sure the "hacking off penises" was hyperbole, though for serial rapist, and habitual offenders there obviously needs to be something more extreme done. I personally would like to see MUCH longer sentences for violent crimes. Murder, and rape especially should carry very hardcore time, but these should also come with a large reduction in non-violent offender, and victimless crime time.

 

[Siddhartha]

How about this: are you sure you want your government to be mutilating, starving, beating, torturing, killing, etc people? What is going to stop the government from treating you or your loved ones this way?

 

[Rainsford]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I like how it took so long for this to come up, and how it was promptly ignored by everyone trying to show how tough they are.

 

[woolfe9999]

Pretty sure the "hacking off penises" was hyperbole, though for serial rapist, and habitual offenders there obviously needs to be something more extreme done. I personally would like to see MUCH longer sentences for violent crimes. Murder, and rape especially should carry very hardcore time, but these should also come with a large reduction in non-violent offender, and victimless crime time.

I agree with you. I'd like to see a reduction in incarceration for non-violent criminals. The most serious violent felonies should probably draw anywhere from 25-life to LWOP first offense. Moderately serious violent felonies (battery/robbery) 2 strikes and you're out (current 3 strikes laws snare a lot of non-violent offenders which I disagree with.)

The trouble is that the OP did not appear to be hyperbolizing. His entire post was built around the idea of these kinds of punishments. I personally do not want the state to have the power to inflict irreversible punishments, whether it is sterilization, amputation, or death because the state isn't going to get it right every time and some innocents will be victimized. It's a matter of where you draw the line with state power. The power to take away liberty is one thing because it can be reversed. The power to take away life or limb cannot.

- wolf

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

America already has some of the longest incarceration lengths in the world. How's that working out for ya?

 

[woolfe9999]

I like how it took so long for this to come up, and how it was promptly ignored by everyone trying to show how tough they are.

Law isn't important when we're talking about gratifying emotions, which is entirely what discussion of these sorts of barbaric punishments is about.

 

[Rainsford]

I agree with you. I'd like to see a reduction in incarceration for non-violent criminals. The most serious violent felonies should probably draw anywhere from 25-life to LWOP first offense. Moderately serious violent felonies (battery/robbery) 2 strikes and you're out (current 3 strikes laws snare a lot of non-violent offenders which I disagree with.)

The trouble is that the OP did not appear to be hyperbolizing. His entire post was built around the idea of these kinds of punishments. I personally do not want the state to have the power to inflict irreversible punishments, whether it is sterilization, amputation, or death because the state isn't going to get it right every time and some innocents will be victimized. It's a matter of where you draw the line with state power. The power to take away liberty is one thing because it can be reversed. The power to take away life or limb cannot.

- wolf

I think that argument gets left out too often in this debate. Even if you're willing to brutally punish a criminal, we have yet to produce a justice system that has a 100% success rate at sorting out the criminals from the innocent. Arguments like the OP made seem to imagine a world with a magic wand that can just figure out who's a criminal and who's not.

Or maybe the problem isn't that the thought doesn't come up, it's that it doesn't matter. It seems somewhat possible that a person who's enthusiastic about the idea of extremely harsh punishments for criminals might not be particularly picky about exactly who those punishments are applied to.

 

[xj0hnx]

America already has some of the longest incarceration lengths in the world. How's that working out for ya?

It's not really working out at all, but it isn't because of handing out to long of sentences, it's because someone can be out of prison in as little as five years even after raping and murdering someone.

 

[Siddhartha]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I thought about bringing the US Constitution into the discussion but decided that the people here who want the government to mutilate and torture probably did not care what the US Constitution has to say on the subject.

 

[KlokWyze]

A state/government should not regularly practice torturing anybody. What sane citizen of a country would want their government to do this? What if you get wrongly convicted of doing something? Does Iran, an example given by the OP, have jury by peers, prosecution/defense, etc.

To me, a very obvious problem is that you can't undo the punishment for wrongful convictions. There are always wrongful convictions.....

As far as lengthy jail times leading to huge economical drains, well that's because the prison industry is privatized. To me, the privatization of this industry itself is a WAY bigger deal than what types of punishments are handed out.

 

[Chaosblade02]

It's a case by case basis thing.

I posted in the 15 year old tried as adult thread because it really is BS. I think at 15 years old, they have time to rehabilitate him and help him re enter society.

But if you try that 15 year old as an adult, you're not actually practicing law... you're pretending. Trying as an adult means that you're pretending he's an adult and not just 15.

You send a 15 year old off to prison, chances are he's not coming out a better person or as somebody able to function in society. You're probably just creating a guy who is going to come to your house and rape and kill your wife instead.

Seeing as how you live in Texas that is a good way for a criminal to get shot in the face. They usually think twice before breaking in someones house if they know the people there are likely armed, and also they can shoot you dead, and they will not get prosecuted for it. Home invasions likely don't go down very well for the perpetrators in Texas. Texas has some of the best Castle Laws in the country. In fact you can shoot someone that is breaking in your neighbors house. I love laws like this.

 

[Rainsford]

Seeing as how you live in Texas that is a good way for a criminal to get shot in the face. They usually think twice before breaking in someones house if they know the people there are likely armed, and also they can shoot you dead, and they will not get prosecuted for it. Home invasions likely don't go down very well for the perpetrators in Texas. Texas has some of the best Castle Laws in the country. In fact you can shoot someone that is breaking in your neighbors house. I love laws like this.

You may love laws like that, but are they really effective at deterring criminals? Kind of the same thought as this thread. Serious consequences should cause potential criminals to think twice, but that's assuming they're actually rational about it. It's definitely appealing to think the world really works that way, especially when it comes to personal defense since it gives you a large measure of control over your own safety. But I wonder how realistic that really is.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Worse prison conditions and longer sentences are definitely not the answer, unless you plan on feeding them nothing and letting them literally rot. Non-violent thieves and such should not be put into an environment where they are basically forced to join prison gangs so they don't get beaten and/or raped, and whether a crime is serious or not, 20 years is a fucking long time. How many people can reasonably spend a quarter of the better years of their life in prison and make something of themselves once they get out? Given how many cases there are of wrong convictions or cops planting fake evidence or whatever, I don't know that I support the death penalty anymore, although I am certainly pro-death of violent criminals. If I was running for something my platform would be...

1. Nation-wide Castle Doctrine. Allow home and business owners take care of robbers, muggers, and such and they will do so.
2. Life sentences for convicted murderers, rapists, etc but with access to certain amenities, paid via labor in prison, and with expanded security. Prisoners found to be violent towards other inmates are put in solitary confinement. No death penalty, and computer/library access to keep them sane and educated in case the judicial system made a mistake.
3. Option for assisted suicide at any time provided by the government for inmates.

 

[fskimospy]

Where is the option for 'no, our current punishment levels are already too high and should be reduced'?

 

[fskimospy]

Seeing as how you live in Texas that is a good way for a criminal to get shot in the face. They usually think twice before breaking in someones house if they know the people there are likely armed, and also they can shoot you dead, and they will not get prosecuted for it. Home invasions likely don't go down very well for the perpetrators in Texas. Texas has some of the best Castle Laws in the country. In fact you can shoot someone that is breaking in your neighbors house. I love laws like this.

And yet Texas has one of the higher violent crime/burglary rates in the United States per capita.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

Can you explain why Texas's crime rates are significantly higher than average in violent crime and burglaries when you believe that criminals are 'thinking twice' before performing those crimes? Why are other states without such laws performing so much better at preventing home invasion?

 

[Rainsford]

And yet Texas has one of the higher violent crime/burglary rates in the United States per capita.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

Can you explain why Texas's crime rates are significantly higher than average in violent crime and burglaries when you believe that criminals are 'thinking twice' before performing those crimes? Why are other states without such laws performing so much better at preventing home invasion?

To be fair, we don't know what Texas's crime rate would be like WITHOUT the castle-doctrine, pro-self defense laws...so it's hard to compare. But obviously there isn't really overwhelming support for it like proponents of the laws would like everyone to believe.

Personally I think that's not really their argument. I'm not sure anybody really supports castle doctrine, etc, because they think it will more broadly help crime rates. I think they just want to be able to shoot and kill people in any circumstance they feel it's necessary without even the possibility of getting in trouble for doing it. Which is fine, I guess, but I'm not sure it's the same area of discussion as trying to generally reduce crime rates.

 

[fskimospy]

To be fair, we don't know what Texas's crime rate would be like WITHOUT the castle-doctrine, pro-self defense laws...so it's hard to compare. But obviously there isn't really overwhelming support for it like proponents of the laws would like everyone to believe.

Personally I think that's not really their argument. I'm not sure anybody really supports castle doctrine, etc, because they think it will more broadly help crime rates. I think they just want to be able to shoot and kill people in any circumstance they feel it's necessary without even the possibility of getting in trouble for doing it. Which is fine, I guess, but I'm not sure it's the same area of discussion as trying to generally reduce crime rates.

Well of course you need some sort of heftier analysis other than just looking at the uniform crime report to truly figure out the effects of these policies, but the data available sure doesn't support the idea that people are engaging in behavior that way.

I think it's more just an issue of 'this feels like it should be right to me, so I will assume it is'. I mean do you really think anyone on here checked crime stats before posting what a good idea it is?