"Reasonable" Punishment
-
my sis was telling me abt her debate in sch...the motion was "shd capital punishment be abolished?"...and some smart guy rebutted "if u kill a murderer...will u rape a rapist?"
of cos i laffed...but it leads me to think whether spore's judiciary is relli fair to both victim and accused...
i r'bered tt last yr a man kicked a neighbour's dog and the dog suffered internal injuries and died...initially he was supposed to be jailed for a few weeks but later the chief of justice reviewed his case and he sneaked wif probation and fine only...
i feel sorrie for the poor innocent doggie...
up till now i still think it is unfair...he murdered a life...and all he got is a warning and a few dollars??...
wat if he go ard kicking his fellow human beings next time round?....
hiaK~...kinda childish thinking here...but...u know...i would like to hear from u ppl...then decide if i shd take up law.... -
if u r rich & influential, a "somebody" u can get away, many a time, quite leniently with an offense...if u are an ordinary person...different story...you'll see what I mean when u become a lawyer.
-
Hi, FireIce
The rebuttal given by that "smart" guy, which I deemed stupid, is very rhetorical. He knows that it is an irrelevant question, but begs the question.
To contemplate on the motion on capital punishment, let me examine what the role of capital punishment in modern society. Of course, the first thing we need to set down are the parameters, captial punishment as the act of putting someone subject to physical damage based on the reason that the someone committed a serious offence, which I would narrow down from the range of rape, vandalism and murder. The capital damage can be about death penalty, but it would drag into a death penalty debate. The next parameter is the word abolish. The policy which I am to adopt here is that we want to put a stop to punishment of people by force.
Then, now the role of capital punishment, the reason for modern society is to give the enraged public or the concerned victim and his/her family a justification to what it is to be done for the person who is responsible for the deaths and physically abused acts suffered by the victims. Capital punishment practices the old Christian saying "an eye for an eye". Of course, some people would so stupid to interpret that the way to punish a rapist is to get him sodomised. But clearly, it is not the case, hence in the situation of rape, we just subject him to physical torture. The idea of letting someone suffer physical pain by capital punishment to let the criminal to have an idea how horrible his crime would have been. However, it does not solve the problem, because it does not rehabilitate the criminal. The criminal is not going to turn into a new guy after one terrible beating. Hence I would seriously argue for the case that capital punishment be abolished. First it violated human rights and second, it is double standards to punish a crime based on physical abuse by physical torture.
Well, I have taken the proposition case to argue this case. Anybody interested in taking the other side of the house? -
I would have to agree that there has to an attempt to rehabilitate the criminal who commited the serious offences. Solve the root of the problem.
However, I think there is a need to make sure the criminal is suitably punished for what he did. By all means rehabilitate him, but since he has violated the rules that other people live by, some form of punishment has to be given to let him know he was wrong. You can't take away the psychological or emotional or physical harm that the criminal has caused. But physical punishment is the closest thing you can get to an eye for an eye.
So why is it so important to get back at the criminal? Maybe its the values that I grew up with. Maybe I just accept that there has to be something done to equalize the damage done by the other party.
Criminals don't turn over a new leaf overnight. No arguments. But criminals don't always respond to rehab either. I think using both methods help tackle the problem both in the short term and the long term. 1) you wake up their idea (hopefully) that they did something wrong, then 2) you re educate them so the lesson sticks. -
Fireice
I sincerly you should read Sixteeth round by Ruben Cartier, an ex-convict and middle-weight boxing champion who is wrongly accused and charged with life imprisonment for a murder he has not committed. It took him 3 jail-terms for him to get off the hook because of some compassionate souls who seems so amandant to clear his name.
Imagine in Singapore, if this man were to be put on trial, he would have been convicted to death sentence for intended murder, and he is INNOCENT! Who is the judge to pass a death sentence in accordance to what the jury thinks and he thinks, and based on the witnesses and evidences? The judge and the jury is not at the scene of the crime..so no one will actually know who is the real murderer.
Here are some of the reasons to support my point why capital punishment shouold be abolished.
1. Evidence and witnesses can be phoney and totally staged.No one knows the truth except themselves who are involved in the crime. Scapegoats are always the ones who can only blamed themselves for being at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Imagine u are put to death for a crime u have not commit...how would u feel? Cries of injustice is what ALL u can do?Much ado about nothing about what is "Appeal"...cos few have really succeeded in clearing their innocence.
2.For each individual crime which leads to death sentences should be reviewed accordingly. Rape leading to unintentional death = murderer...means death. Why should he be put to death becos his first intention is to rape and not to kill?I think he should be castrated and out to life imprisonment instead...(Death is just to easy unless the judge thinks it is a waste of resources to accomodate a SOB like him)
3.Since we are both human in equality, we should have rights to live and die possibly naturally. Physical punishment is certainly signs of inequality and giving a person no chance of repentance and mercy. I do think that some ppl do not change but if u dun give them a chance, they will be condemned as a criminal forever.
Hereby, I appeal that capital punishment be abolished...
------------------
When you can feel light in your life, you have found Hope. -
Okay lah, backside itchy, so IÂ’ll play devilÂ’s advocate:
First Proddy,
1. “Then, now the role of capital punishment, the reason for modern society is to give the enraged
public or the concerned victim and his/her family a justification to what it is to be done for the person who is responsible for the deaths and physically abused acts suffered by the victims.”
What is wrong with that?
2. “The idea of letting someone suffer physical pain by capital punishment to let the criminal to have an idea how horrible his crime would have been. However, it does not solve the problem, because it does not rehabilitate the criminal.”
I think you mean ‘corporal punishment’ and not ‘capital punishment’ because the latter will leave the criminal DEAD without ANY chance of rehabilitation. However, if corporal punishment, physical trauma and it’s concomitant dread, does not ‘rehabilitate’ the criminal how will abolishing it help? Soft options like psychological (which I think is crap) and psychiatric rehabilitation? If the harsh forms of punishment cannot, as you put it ‘solve the problem’, it stands to reason one has no choice but to look for even harsher forms of punishment. Anything softer will contradict your first point.
3. “First it violated human rights and second, it is double standards to punish a crime based on
physical abuse by physical torture.”
Would it not be a greater travesty of the victimÂ’s human rights for the criminal to be lightly punished? And why is it double standards to punish physical abuse with physical torture? Define torture. Taken to its logical conclusion does your argument not mean that if I slapped a person I can morally expect the person NOT to slap me in return?
Rinoa, my my where do I begin?
1. “The judge and the jury is not at the scene of the crime..so no one will actually know who is the real murderer.”
Which is why we have trials. In an ideal world we would know who did what, in an ideal world we would not have to deal with murder. But that aside we have to make a judicial decision. Appealing to human shortcomings to argue against capital punishment is begging the question. You are directing your arguments at the judicial system NOT the morality of capital punishment.
2. “Evidence and witnesses can be phoney and totally staged.No one knows the truth except themselves who are involved in the crime. Scapegoats are always the ones who can only blamed themselves for being at the wrong place, at the wrong time.”
This argument is borne from the fear of making mistakes instead of the demerits of capital punishment. If you are saying we should only imprison because there may be a chance they are innocent then the moral-value of sentencing would be eroded since the judge is in fact saying, ‘you’re going to the cooler for life because we don’t know if you did it or not, hence I’m playing it safe.’ Overtime the judge’s decisions will be nothing but halfway houses for judicial execution.
3. “Rape leading to unintentional death = murderer...means death. Why should he be put to death
becos his first intention is to rape and not to kill?”
How does one prove intention? “Your honour, she died because I tried to rape her, but I tried to rape her only because I was sexually aroused. I was only sexual aroused because my hands were all over her. My hands were all over her only because I thought she meant ‘Yes’ when she said ‘Stop’. As such your honour, you can only sentence me for misinterpreting her for her death.” What a joke!
4. “Since we are both human in equality, we should have rights to live and die possibly naturally.”
Why donÂ’t you try telling that to a parent whose 8 year old child has been raped and murdered. Come over to England, you can meet the parents for tea.
5. “I do think that some ppl do not change but if u dun give them a chance, they will be condemned as a criminal forever.”
I do not think the possibility for repentance morally outweighs the need for punishment. The saying ‘everyone deserves a second chance’ is commendable but it is not sufficient for arguing against punishment.
cheerio
------------------
There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertable.
P.J. O'Rourke -
Terence
As expected, me and Proddy has already speculate that u will be the lacky of the devil..as usual...
Ok...first thing first...let me clarify my points.
1.The morality of capital punishment which means the rightness of this action..involves the decree of the jury and the judge to anomyously agree that the convict is guilty, which means the judicial system in directly affects the morality of capital punishment. It is anyway the judicial system that determines if a person should be freed, jailed or a death penalty.Without the judicial system, capital punishment will have no basis to be argued.
2.I am not doubting the ability of the judge his evaluation of the case...I just want to lament that there are cases of ppl who are innocent and put to death and prison...and what has justice meant to them? An innocent life can't be brought back because of a blunder the court has made. So..I am just giving the possibility of an innocent man being able to readdress himself. But how is he going to tell the whole world that he is inncent if he is dead?
3.It is no joke when I am trying to give an example of the mental state of a brutal rapist...and I am not trying to say that he has the right to rape though he has no intention to kill...but the law always emphasize the motive of a person whichever crime he has committed..and it greatly can affect the sentence he is going to get...Yes he is a rapist..but whether it is intended murder or attempted murder concludes different sentences...and what I really mean is for a real jerk like him...Death is too easy for him and I should strongly encourage the use of castration which enable him not to do the same deed anymore...Death is too light a penalty for a criminal like him.
4.Like I said above, he deserve more than just death...I dun think that the parents of the deceased would think that death is justifiable for the humilation that their daughter have . Therefore, I think the above punishment I have suggested is definitely more feasible..or maybe use my lethal weapon..Conc HCl on his face or perform acid genital mutilation on a jerk like him *kidding*
5. I did not say that a convict should not be punished for such a heavy crime but death sentence gurantee that the criminal will not even have a chance to be sorry....Life imprisonment and coporal punishment is more than enought to have his conscious struck with guilt forever....and condemn by the society leading to ostracization...
Hope I have cleared the clouds..and to stress again...that capital punishment is not the only ultimate solution to punish even the worse criminal on earth...cos to some to die is easier than to live.
------------------
When you can feel light in your life, you have found Hope.
[This message has been edited by Rinoa Heartilly (edited 10 March 2000).] -
[This message has been edited by Asure (edited 06 November 2001).] -
Hi Terence:
1. On your first point about "What is wrong with that?" in respond to the earlier point which I purported. The whole point of installing capital punishment is that you are doing something back on the same person, knowing that in the first place, you are also committing the "eye for an eye" attitude. There is nothing wrong with society adopting such view, but there is something wrong that the people would become vengeful to things. If force is the only way to deal with crimes, then I would see the society advocating double standards, particularly, about values such as "forgive and forget".
I will come back later, after I figured out something first.... -
Capital punishment for serious crimes & drug trafficking should stay because the mere thought that you could die if you commit these crimes should & would make anyone think twice if not thrice before doing them.
Abolishing capital punishment would only be an inducement to those with a mean or brutal streak in them to throw caution to the winds & commit whatever hideous crimes whenever the fancy takes them.
As human beings are social creatures, certain social rules have evolved over the centuries to define acceptable behaviour, it would be these rules that keeps the society civilized & prevent anarchy. Killing someone just because youÂ’ve lost your temper or simply you donÂ’t like them or you covet their possessions or you donÂ’t want anyone else to have him/her is simply not right. If a second chance is given to these criminals, what about the chance that was rightfully the victimÂ’s to live? Of course, sometimes the killers were provoked into doing what they did, well, if they can prove that the victim provoked him/her unnecessarily, the killer doesnÂ’t get the death sentence, he/she merely gets life imprisonment, which is a darn sight better than being dead, donÂ’t you agree?
Luckily for the criminals that IÂ’m not qualified nor have the power to change the law, if I had, any crime that results in death will automatically carry the death sentence if malicious intent can be proven.
When a man commit a serious crime like rape on a woman just because heÂ’s horny or he has taken an obsessive fancy to the woman is no excuse & should the rape result in the death of the woman, I have no sympathy for the rapist, the death sentence is too easy for him but not to sentence him to die would be an insult to the victimÂ’s family. Sure, killing the perpetrator wouldnÂ’t bring the victim back to life but for the victimÂ’s family, justice is served. Before we sympathize with the criminal, letÂ’s just spare a thought to the innocent victim & his/her family of the crime.
Similarly, drunk driving which results in the death of a pedestrian or a fellow driver, that drunk driver should be charged with murder instead of recklessly driving under the influence of alcohol. A car or a motor vehicle travelling at speed is a deadly weapon, the drivers must be made aware that they are responsible for their own safety as well as othersÂ’.
I think society has come to view lives as of little value when that life doesn’t touch theirs that it matters not an iota when a life is killed. When we read of a gruesome murder, rape or a student/old folk being killed by impatient, reckless drivers, we may feel sympathy at the tragedy and say “Oh, what a waste of life! or it was meant to be (ie, fated) or damn suay (ie, unlucky)” and get on with our lives in the next breath. It is the victim’s loved ones: grandparents, parents, spouse, children, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces, lovers, boy/girl friends, fiance/é, relatives & friends who will feel the impact from the loss of the victim. As a bystander, we can never understand the void they’ll have in their lives from that day onwards. They’ll be plagued by the question of why & asked God why it had to happen, but they’ll never get an answer which can satisfy them for the problem of pain & suffering has never been answered - hinted at in the bible but no direct answer on why good people die unnecessarily or have to suffer.
So, please spare some thoughts to the victimÂ’s family & loved ones before advocating abolishing capital punishment for the criminals deserving of death. Yes, as a Christian, IÂ’m to love my enemy but even then thereÂ’re enemies & enemies. Satan is also an enemy, did you ever hear Christ or the apostles exhorting us to love him? Some vices are to be avoided because if we donÂ’t, they will taint us.
The judicial system in Singapore is one of the best in the world, a little harsh at times but overall fair. I would liken the penalties that one has to bear when one intentionally (or unintentionally as the law doesnÂ’t really care if you know it or not, youÂ’re presumed to know that they exist) breaks the law as to the penalties one would have to bear when one plays a game. When you engage in a game, youÂ’re required to stick to the rules, break it, youÂ’re punished. Similarly, life is one huge game with no replays, so if you want to live outside the prison walls, stick to the rules, bend them if you can but take good care never to break them.
Miscarriage of justice unfortunately do occur but the minute proportion of these incidents do not merit doing away with capital punishment, anyway, when one is sentenced to death, they usually languish in the cell for a year or two before bidding life goodbye, thus during that period, they can always appeal. The public prosecutor cannot turn down their appeals and justice wonÂ’t be denied them. -
din know there are so many "potential lawyers" ard...hiaK~...
will the real lawyer or law student pls step out? -
hi Fireice,
Are you mocking us? As far as I know, there're no lawyers in this thread. If I'm not wrong Rinona Heartilly is studying psychology & prodigal & Terence are on scholarships for some political courses. no idea what mateo, pacman or asure are studying.
Me? Already slogging away my life in the cruel working world.
To All:
Hey, did you see the pictures for the BBQ the forumites had last month? There's this one girl's picture which appears a lot of times, I wonder if the cameraman is smitten with her? Do you know any of the people in those picture, can anyone please name some names so that I can put a face to the nicks I see in this forum. Please, pretty please to all who know. Thanks.
-
colette:
dun get me wrong lah...i was juz saying that the way u ppl argued is very pro...like real lawyers and i was wondering if there is anyone ard who is familiar with the law can come out and clear the doubts above...
fair is foul and foul is fair?.... -
Yummers...
Something snapped. I'm sorry if this offends some people... you can flame me I suppose. *resigned to a sad fate*
I simple don't agree with recent sentences that sent people to jail for abuse to animals. Lettsee whether I got it right : someone was jailed for throwing cats to their death and the dog case and the burying kittens alive, etc.
Yes these were cruel and needless deaths. However innocent they are, they are still animals. They are food for me. I will eat them, trade them, skin them for the purpose of keeping myself alive. I will unhestitatingly kill my 5 yr old cat, if it was a choice between them and another human being in a crisis. I will eat a dog. I will eat a cat. I will eat a rat. (yes, I passed my PSLE english ... heh)
Being sent to jail for abusing animals is ridiculous in my opinion. I know this runs contrary to all "sentimental" opinions. I am a humanitarian. I believe in working for the welfare for human beings. NOT animals. I've worked in a ramshackle village in Vietnam as part of a UNAS project to rebuild it. Let me tell you that the reality is different. The amount of money I feed my cats each year can feed two children there. If Duong and Minh asks, they can eat my cat.
To summarise : I concede those were needless and cruel treatment of the animals. I conceded a stiff penalty should be made. BUT I will not concede a jail term. It is too much to lose because of an animal I will unhestitatingly put on my plate.
*awaiting the flames*
cheers.
------------------
No universal history leads from savagery to humanitarianism, but there is one leading from the slingshot to the megatonne bomb.
Adorno -
FireIce,
Thank you, thank you
. You've just made my tedious Friday wonderful, I'm cleaning up my room even as I surf this forum, didn't know how I can have so much junk. Nah, I'm not a lawyer - not a graduate even.
Friday's looking good now.
[This message has been edited by colette (edited 10 March 2000).] -
Proddy,
Who says society will adopt an eye for an eye attitude? Only the judicial system has the moral and legistative powers to extract punishment. Even if capital and coporal punishment means, to you, an eye for an eye attitude, it does not automatically give rise to vigilantism. The more prompt the legal procedures the more attractive legal recourse would be. Also, call me crazy but I prefer the 'an eye for an eye' attitude than a 'promise of sweet forgiveness for an eye' attitude. It is naive to think the milk of human kindness will overflow.
rinoa,
no baby, the clouds are still pressed together. i don't understand your argument, just as in some other threads.
first you argued that the fallabilty of the judicial system is cause enough to abolish capital punishment. i pointed out that the judicial system and capital punishment are two separate entities, and while the latter may be a consequence of the workings of the former, you cannot point out the flaws in judicial system as defence for abolishment.
for example, abolishment of capital punishment will not but an end to abuse or failings in the judicial system. you have not made a case against capital punishment per se as yet.
"So..I am just giving the possibility of an innocent man being able to readdress himself. But how is he going to tell the whole world that he is inncent if he is dead?"
again, you are, and rightly i may add, attacking the failings of a judicial system when it does not have enough safeguards or lack thoroughness. however, you have not said why it is morally wrong to sentence a man to death. (i have told you why i do not accept your 'no chance of forgiveness' argument as it undermines the duty and institutionary morality of the judge.)
as for the rest of your points, i'm sorry, i either don't understand what you are trying to say since i think i've already addressed them or i'm too dim for you. probably the latter.
colette,
i'm on a scholarship for salsa, limbo rock and women-watching.
cheerio
------------------
There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertable.
P.J. O'Rourke -
Terence,
Yeah right. If I remember correctly, you're on a government scholarship, is this where the poor taxpayer's money is going to these days? -
Reasonable punishment? A contradiction in terms which cannot be rectified. From the victim's point of view, no punishment is severe enough. From the aggressor's, every punishment is too severe, and his crime is not "bad" enough to warrant it.
Reasonable? To whom? The victim? The aggressor? The public?
What a dilemma.
------------------
This is merely the path I have chosen. You decide yours. -
Hi, i am new to this and please just allow me to add my 5 cent worth
[FireIce]
the person said "if u kill a murderer ... will you rape a rapist?"
May i ask, does this mean we should kidnap a kidnapper ? haha. We don't kill a murderer, we punish a murderer. And the punishment is death.
FireIce, if your objective of taking up law is to uphold justice, then i think you should not take it up. Cos a lawyer need to be rational, professional and logical, not emotional. Similarly if anyone wants to be a doctor because he wants to save lives then I think he should not be a doctor. Pardon me for being tactless here
[prodigal]
i dun think capital punishment is a violation of human rights. Everyone knows that the punishment of murder is death. If he chooses to murder someone, he has basically chosen to be put to death.
If a person can murder someone now .. he can do it again. Well you may argue that he kill someone due to emotional instability or a moment of folly. If that is the case, the case will not be considered as "murder", may be manslaughter or something else and he will not be put to death, maybe a long jail term or life imprisonment. If it is really murder ... that means this person kill someone when he is calm, logical, rational and intentional. Then I think he SHOULD be put to death, cos he is highly dangerous.
[pacman]
well solving the root of the problem ?
to me, the only way to solve the root of the problem is through education and education takes decades to see its effect, if the education is effective that is. Are we willing to wait ? Or can we afford to wait ?
[Rinoa]
how many people are wrongly accused of murder in singapore ? Just because of a single case (an extreme one) should we abolish the capital punishment? But of course this does not mean we ignore the possibility of a wrong conviction. What we can do is to improve our judicial system every now and then and a constant effort to look for loopholes in the system must be made. We should also train better lawyers and better judges so that the truth can be found and justice upheld.
You dun stop eating apples because you have been choked with one before. You just be more careful next time. We learn from other's mistakes and make sure it will not happen in singapore.
And when you give a murderer a second chance to live, you are also giving him a second chance to kill. Can we afford to take the risk ?
[Barcalys]
A very logical thinking indeed.
Well, i will kill an animal too (be it a cat, dog or rat) if i need to eat them just to keep myself alive, that's the rule of nature since the creation of the earth. The fittest survive. In fact, in some parts of China, parents eat their own newborns (or sell to their neighbours for the same purpose) especially if the babies are females.
But I will not kill animals for fun and should not.
You may say that the guilty can be fined heavily but the money may not come from him but from someone else (parents??) hence he is not really "punished" hence he don't feel the "pain". So i think it is appropriate to put him in jail, the question is how long should the term be.
just to add :
Life imprisonment MAY BE more torturous to some. But when you are still alive, you can still see your loved ones, see how your children grow up etc etc. Hence it may not be as torturous as you thought. And the President do have the authority to reduce the jail term of someone who has performed well in jail etc etc. The question is: Do a murderer deserve all these ? Or should he just be destroyed and vanish from the surface of the earth ?
In my view, no punishment is fair. The victim is hurt and that can never be undone. Punishments serve only 1 purpose : deterence.
It should not be viewed as a form of "revenge" for the victim too, as law should not take sides, ideally. So if capital punishment is effective in detering people from committing serious crimes, why should we abolish it ? -
Hi, i am new to this and please just allow me to add my 5 cent worth
[FireIce]
the person said "if u kill a murderer ... will you rape a rapist?"
May i ask, does this mean we should kidnap a kidnapper ? haha. We don't kill a murderer, we punish a murderer. And the punishment is death.
FireIce, if your objective of taking up law is to uphold justice, then i think you should not take it up. Cos a lawyer need to be rational, professional and logical, not emotional. Similarly if anyone wants to be a doctor because he wants to save lives then I think he should not be a doctor. Pardon me for being tactless here
[prodigal]
i dun think capital punishment is a violation of human rights. Everyone knows that the punishment of murder is death. If he chooses to murder someone, he has basically chosen to be put to death.
If a person can murder someone now .. he can do it again. Well you may argue that he kill someone due to emotional instability or a moment of folly. If that is the case, the case will not be considered as "murder", may be manslaughter or something else and he will not be put to death, maybe a long jail term or life imprisonment. If it is really murder ... that means this person kill someone when he is calm, logical, rational and intentional. Then I think he SHOULD be put to death, cos he is highly dangerous.
[pacman]
well solving the root of the problem ?
to me, the only way to solve the root of the problem is through education and education takes decades to see its effect, if the education is effective that is. Are we willing to wait ? Or can we afford to wait ?
[Rinoa]
how many people are wrongly accused of murder in singapore ? Just because of a single case (an extreme one) should we abolish the capital punishment? But of course this does not mean we ignore the possibility of a wrong conviction. What we can do is to improve our judicial system every now and then and a constant effort to look for loopholes in the system must be made. We should also train better lawyers and better judges so that the truth can be found and justice upheld.
You dun stop eating apples because you have been choked with one before. You just be more careful next time. We learn from other's mistakes and make sure it will not happen in singapore.
And when you give a murderer a second chance to live, you are also giving him a second chance to kill. Can we afford to take the risk ?
[Barcalys]
A very logical thinking indeed.
Well, i will kill an animal too (be it a cat, dog or rat) if i need to eat them just to keep myself alive, that's the rule of nature since the creation of the earth. The fittest survive. In fact, in some parts of China, parents eat their own newborns (or sell to their neighbours for the same purpose) especially if the babies are females.
But I will not kill animals for fun and should not.
You may say that the guilty can be fined heavily but the money may not come from him but from someone else (parents??) hence he is not really "punished" hence he don't feel the "pain". So i think it is appropriate to put him in jail, the question is how long should the term be.
just to add :
Life imprisonment MAY BE more torturous to some. But when you are still alive, you can still see your loved ones, see how your children grow up etc etc. Hence it may not be as torturous as you thought. And the President do have the authority to reduce the jail term of someone who has performed well in jail etc etc. The question is: Do a murderer deserve all these ? Or should he just be destroyed and vanish from the surface of the earth ?
In my view, no punishment is fair. The victim is hurt and that can never be undone. Punishments serve only 1 purpose : deterence.
It should not be viewed as a form of "revenge" for the victim too, as law should not take sides, ideally. So if capital punishment is effective in detering people from committing serious crimes, why should we abolish it ? -
Well, colette:
Unfortunately, I am not a political scientist. I am a natural philosopher (or what people has now termed as scientist) paid by the British government. But because I do debating in my university, I am forced to do all kinds of reading involving law, politics and economics so that I won't be crushed by the lawyers.
Meanwhile, I get back to the overwhelming array of replies which I have to do it one by one, perhaps in an array of a few posts.
First of all, in regards to Asure's comment on law being a double edged sword. It reminded me of a debate about British Justice in my University, where two Queen's Counsellors, the Director of prison services in UK, Lord Millett (the Lord of Law in UK), the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Liberty (an law firm who specialized in addressing issues of miscarriages of justice in legal issues). The motion states that this House believes that "we should have no faith in British Justice". I am going to make use of a few arguments brought upon in this debate and match it to the issue of capital pubishment to the best I can.
Now, the first point is that there is a distinction between law and justice. The law is a system of rules and regulations made by the people to ensure civil rights and order in society. Justice is one aspect of law. In the court, we always have both sides of the House, a prosecutor and a defendant lawyer. They are not synonomus in any case which I would purport in my arguments. In the issue of Capital punishment, then I would think about the death penalty as a specific example. It is the punishment imposed by the people to address to serious crimes committed such as murder, rape, or drug-trafficking. It can be invoked to address the issue of justice for the families involved and more importantly, it is imposed by the rules and regulations set by the court, and of course issued through the mouths of the Judge and sometimes the decisions of the jury.
That comes to my second point, what if we imposed capital punishment to people who are innocent? Now, we know that why we have no faith in Justice on the grounds of legal system, because there are anomalies to the system, where there are miscarriages in Justice as pointed out Rinoa in her argument (although she is not specific and that was pointed out by Terence later). What happens then? When the legal system gets it wrong, they get it really wrong. There are people who are put to death and I forgot the name of a specific example given to me by my lawyer friend. Then if we used capital punishment on the accused and later found out that he was innocent, how are we going to justify the use of capital punishment? In the case of the death penalty concerned, it means that we have killed another innocent person because we thought that it was the truth. However, the abolishment of capital punishment would seek to remedy such specific anomalies of justice. That is on the defence of Rinoa's point against Terence.
To rebutt Terence's argument against my point about not advocating the "eye for an eye" attitude, because it is not better than the other. Of course, I would query him on the context of examples. What makes you think that if we take that away, the crime rate would ever decrease? No, the problem is that you are just choosing the preference of one system over the other. I don't see that attitude is anymore pragmatic compared to the idea of rehabilitation. What I am advocating on my side of the House is the policy that we rehabilitate these criminals.
I remember in a sci-fiction story, where serial killers and criminals were not executed but by erasing their memories and give them a new identity to work. That seems to be an innovative idea, but of course, it is just a sideline issue. -
KTE,
i don't understand why 'reasonable punishment' is a contradiction in terms. could you expand on that?
also, who says victims never believe the punishment dealt to offenders is fair? a jail sentence for 6-8 months for a pickpocket sounds fair and any reasonable victim would not clamour for the death penalty.
colette:
yes, i'm afraid the taxpayers money is going into my developing into a latin butt-shaker! i don't think its a waste of money.
cheerio
------------------
There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertable.
P.J. O'Rourke -
Well, Terence,
After addressing to a sideline point, let me come back to deal with your point 2 now (point 3 is a little subtle and demands a little more thought) :
2. On the point of how the abolishment would help, I would say that I have not distinctly made clear in my definition earlier the difference between corporal punishment and capital punishment. My apologies. But what I advocate to solve the problem is not to resort to harsher forms like to kill someone because he killed someone. It does not contradict the first point that one has to address the issue back to the angry families of the victim. Of course, I can always counterargue that it is the family who wants justice served by the same manner, and not society. It is just to appease the family but it does not contribute anything to society at all. What is the difference of locking someone up for an entire life and the having the person killed where human life is supposed to be precious in many people's eyes? -
proddy,
an eye for an eye attitude vis-a-vis legal recourse promises some sense of punishment. this punishment provides both a notion of deterence and, as you've pointed out, a sense of public appeasement. rehabilitation, a soft option, is not a deterence. secondly, the US track record for rehab is appalling going by the number of repeat offenders not to mention a strain of resources and taxpayers money.
"...advocating the "eye for an eye" attitude, because it is not better than the other."
ask a potential rapist if psychological rehabilitation or 24 strokes of the cane is a better deterence.
"I don't see that attitude is anymore pragmatic compared to the idea of rehabilitation."
on the contrary, i think eye for an eye attitude has strong pragmatic points when compared to rehab.
1. less expensive to run
2. requires less manpower and manhours
3. easier to dispense
4. higher success rate if we consider fear a good enough deterence.
5. does not compete with other medical cases for psychiatric attention.
rehab has strong humanitarian sentiments which i understand are attractive but it has too poor a track record to be a viable option.
cheerio
------------------
There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertable.
P.J. O'Rourke -
I just made some calculations ....
if a person is sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death ....
let's say he makan $ 1 per meal. Hence $ 3 per day (assume 3 meals per day).
$ 1095 a year
with an interest rate of 5 % and let's say the person live up to 70 years old and was put to jail at 30 yrs old, the tax payers will have to come up with $ 132275.75 to feed him. This figure does not include maintenance fees etc etc, only food. If we have 10 of such people, the figure will exceed 1.3 million.
Should we pay this money to feed him or should we give this money to the needy ?