Sorry for the late response. The thread was 'outbumped' from my VGChartz Buddy.

"Murdering someone, then afterwards being sincerely sorry doesn't change the pain and anguish the victims family feels."

Neither does the fact that the criminal has been punished. Even then, all friends and relatives will obviously miss the deceased person. Not even the most severe punishment can change that. People call it justice when someone has been punished just because they have been taught that that's the case. But the truth is that we all have different definitions of justice, and all I'm doing is presenting mine in the OP.

I mean, let's say that a guy accidentally kills a random citizen for money. He then serves his time in jail and proceeds to spit on the victims grave and giggles each time he passes by any of the deceased person's relatives. Is that justice? I don't think so. I think the perfect justice would be served by the time we make him realize the consequences of what he has done, in which case he would be deeply (if not painfully) sorry and sincerely apologize to all relatives. If the relatives knew for sure that he was sorry, I believe that would make them a lot happier than seeing him going through further pain...unless they are of great sadistic nature, as mentioned in the OP.

Of course, with current technology this is not possible, and it probably never will be. But this thread is not about that. This thread is about what we think is ideal in an ideal world. I say it is unnecessary to punish a person who is sincerely sorry about its crimes, and that further punishing them (beyond their already great guilt) is inhumane and unjustified.

(Awesome name, BTW :)

1st: Seems wrong to have the criminal go unpunished. It will never bring back the loved one, but to know that they are going off scot free because they are tuly sorry....just seems wrong. Its the human condition, we need closure, despite the loss being felt.

2nd: If the guy does his time, then thats justice. Feeling no remorse just means hes an asshole. But he paid his dues against his will, but paid them nonetheless.

3rd: Idealy, death punishment should be abolished. Criminals should be punished with mandatory working towards city projects for the betterment of the community. Rotting in a cell doesnt help anybody.

(thank you, and I rather enjoy these thought provoking threads by you)

That third paragraph is the defintion of naive.

your last sentence is not based on reality but someone is who thinks hugging each other solves everything.

I can't tell if you really believe this or your saying because it sounds good on paper.

i mean could give thousands of situations showing what your saying isn't going to work. This literally made me believe your just naive to the world.

Of course the last sentence is not based on reality. I've mentioned several times that I'm talking about an ideal world where what currently is impossible (such as being 100% sure that the criminal is sincerely sorry for its criminal acts) would be possible. Views based on an ideal world can only sound good on a paper, given how the real world obviously isn't ideal at the moment. You believe that I am naive to the world; I know that you currently are naive to the topic.

I'm spreading my views in the OP, and the purpose of this thread is for others to do the same and discuss them. Feel free to do so.

Prisons are a money pit. It costs upwards of $50,000 to house each criminal per year.

Solutions:
-Victimless crimes need to be abolished entirely.
-If a term exceeds 10 years, that person should receive the death penalty. No exceptions. That's $500,000 dollars spent just to house someone who made a conscious decision to willfully break the law.
-Accelerated sentences for those willing to participate in rehabilitation, education, and apprenticeship. Simply, the ones wanting to contribute to society in an admirable way but simply had no means to achieve.

That's not smart at all. If a person commits a crime that warrants over 10 years in pirson, which means they get the death penalty, nothing would discourage them from committing more violent crimes.

For example, imagine that rape warrants twelve years in prison. Nowe, imagine this scenario: Let's say a man just raped a lady in an alley. After raping the lady, the man has two choices: He can murder his victim, or he can just run away. In real life circumstances, murder gives a much harsher sentence than rape; so the man would have incentive to not murder the woman - he doesn't want to get the death penalty. However, under your circumstances, murder and rape each give equal punishment - both equal the death penalty if he's found. So, he's already raped her, which means death, so he would have nothing that discourages him from killing the woman; he would have nothing to lose. Needless to say, your system would increase the chances of the man killing her,

There needs to be a gradual continuam of punishment varying based on the severity of the crime. Or else, you would have a world where the instant a person commits a crime that warrants over 10 years in prison, they would have nothing to lose. You would have a world of desperate criminals who didn't care if they committing harsher crimes.

No, it will always be impossible as long as people are dishonest ans selfish what you say could never come to actually being a reality.

So do you believe that John Wayne Gacy (and others like him) should say "I'm sorry" and be allowed to walk the streets again?

Do you think people like that even care?

That use of the word "no" is incorrect. If I say that it is currently impossible to travel back in time, that is a correct statement. Even if we never will be able to.

If we are talking about an ideal world where we do know if a person is sorry and is regretting its actions, then yes. If he sincerely regrets all his criminal actions and wish he had never made them, why wouldn't we let him walk on the streets again? If it later turns out that he has changed his mind for whatever reason and that he is willing to kill again, that just means he needs further treatment due to new unpredicted events. If we assume that the treatment is perfect, him going back to becoming a killer would be no different from a random person suddenly showing tendenses of a serial killer. Him being a killer in the past would not matter if the treatment truly was perfect.

As for your last question: Yes. After a perfect treatment he would care. It's not a matter of what we "think".

How would the criminal know the crime warrants a 12 year sentence or even that they would even be caught in the first place?

If a criminal is going to murder someone, the sentence does not matter to them.

You seem to think criminals are rational. They aren't, which is why they are criminals.

If anything punishments need to be harsher.