By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Are Punishments Really Idealistic?

 

Well?

Yes 12 60.00%
 
No 7 35.00%
 
See results 1 5.00%
 
Total:20
Kantor on 17 November 2012
sethnintendo said:

Legalize all drugs and give the addicts that want help treatment rather than jail time. It would free up a lot of prisons to actually contain criminals that hurt people like rapist, murders, and child molesters.  Private prisons are a big business and it should have never gotten to this point.  Private companies should not own prisons.

I disagree. Private companies should own prisons so that prisoners can be put to productive work rather than sitting in a dark cell for 23 hours a day (which helps nobody at all).

But the judiciary should be incorruptible, which is easier if it is publicly funded. There should be no ties at all between the prison owners and the judiciary. And the legal process should be completely open so that it can be examined for any signs of bribery.

And yes, drug use should be decriminalised.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
dahuman on 17 November 2012

No, punishment is not idealistic, we should just kill them, then see how many people wanna do bad shit then, I'll bet you the crime rate would be low as hell. BTW I didn't vote.



dahuman on 17 November 2012
Kantor said:
sethnintendo said:

Legalize all drugs and give the addicts that want help treatment rather than jail time. It would free up a lot of prisons to actually contain criminals that hurt people like rapist, murders, and child molesters.  Private prisons are a big business and it should have never gotten to this point.  Private companies should not own prisons.

I disagree. Private companies should own prisons so that prisoners can be put to productive work rather than sitting in a dark cell for 23 hours a day (which helps nobody at all).

But the judiciary should be incorruptible, which is easier if it is publicly funded. There should be no ties at all between the prison owners and the judiciary. And the legal process should be completely open so that it can be examined for any signs of bribery.

And yes, drug use should be decriminalised.

That's a good idea too, make them work and have a mini society that never goes out in the world, give them currency that they can trade things with and leave them in there forever to kill themselves.



Mr Khan on 17 November 2012

The hard truth is that some people are just sociopathic. Not crazy enough to be institutionalized, but who will, if left to society proper, always be a ticking time bomb, waiting for one poisonous relationship, one car to cut them off, one underaged individual to exploit

The problem in prison is other prisoners, really. Ideally rehabilitation would take place in smaller groups, without creating an alternate society of people who have self-demonstrated a pathological relationship with society. Sort out the sociopaths from the people who just got in over their heads in a bad world, and work from there.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 17 November 2012
Jay520 said:

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


Sure, if rehabiliation was perfect, then there would be no need for prisons. The world would definitely be different if certain things were different.

As for the last paragraph, punishment is just for rehabilitation. It's also to contain criminals and to deter potential criminals. Something, other forms of treatment cannot do.

Instead of seperating an ideal rehabilitation with prison, why not combine them? Prisons are advantageous because they keep criminals from society. At the same time though, prisoners can recieve this perfect rehabilitation you speak of.


Yeah, I don't mind combining the two, nor did I expect them to be separated in the first place. I separated them in the OP for the sake of simplicity.



Around the Network
pokoko on 17 November 2012
Mr Khan said:
The problem in prison is other prisoners, really. Ideally rehabilitation would take place in smaller groups, without creating an alternate society of people who have self-demonstrated a pathological relationship with society. Sort out the sociopaths from the people who just got in over their heads in a bad world, and work from there.

True.  A good way to turn a person into a habitual criminal is to put them in prison.  It's actually the opposite of rehabilitation in many ways.  



HappySqurriel on 17 November 2012

I don't remember the statistics off the top of my head (it has been a long time since I looked them up) but most people who enter the prison system are "rehabilitated" in that they don't get caught committing another crime and the majority of people serving out prison sentences are repeat offenders ...

The explaination I have heard for this is that most people "break the rules" under the belief that they will never get caught and/or there will be no serious consequences for their actions, and the act of being caught and the threat of consequences is enough to prevent future crimes by these individuals; while a smaller portion of the population is driven to "break the rules" because of some form of compulsion and no consequence will make these individuals act responsibly.

If this theory is correct, giving people probation on their first offence (for non-violent/sexual crimes), 1/2 sentences for their second offence, a full sentence for their third offence, and progressively longer sentences after that would probably be the best approach; and the underlying principle of this system would be to protect society from crime rather than punish criminals, and the only real punishment is the seperation from society (in other words, besides considerations for the safety of other prisoners and guards prisoners don't have to be really denied much).



Akvod on 17 November 2012

Part of the existence for punishments is to prevent/deter from crime happening in the same place. You may or may not have a point about rehabilitation after the crime was committed, but that's only one side of the story.



DiscussionTime on 19 November 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

If they were to apologize to the victim or his/her relatives following this treatment, would a punishment really be a necessary act? Would they really deserve to suffer even further beyond their already severe regrets?

After all, the purpose of punishment is to stop people from committing crimes, and since that would already be accomplished, these people would have another reason to support punishments: The pleasure of watching the criminal suffer just like their victims did.

I say that it's inhumane to punish a criminal who is sincerely sorry about its actions; what do you say? Can a person deserve to be punished for its actions no matter how much it regrets them?

Please note that I'm well aware that punishments are currently one of the best and cheapest methods of stopping criminals acts from occurring, and therefore do not oppose them at this point. I only oppose them in an ideal world where the perfect- or highly effective treatment such as the example named above is possible

Murdering someone, then afterwards being sincerely sorry doesn't change the pain and anguish the victims family feels. You must be able to answer for your actions, sorry or not. Its fair and just.

Purpose of punishment is to prevent crime with fear, but ALSO to be enforced when said crimes are committed anyway. There should be no pleasure in watching criminals suffer as much as  the victim.....its the knowledge that they will do the time and justice will therefore be served.

Saying sorry doesnt change the dead bodies burried in the backyard. There is also no 100% way to prove that they are sincere. Either way, you do the crime, you pay the consequences, epiphany or not.



oldschoolfool on 19 November 2012

I believe rehab should be used for the non-violent criminals. seth-nintendo probably needs to go to rehab. lol