Can it really be considered a justice system if what you're doing is punishing the criminal? It is a punitive system more than a justice system.
Before you go on to say it it depends on what you call justice hear me out.
In plea bargains, both the defendant and prosecutor win, but not the victim. You would want the person who ***** you to be charged with violent sexual assault, not disrupting the peace or something like that. It is not justice if the victim does not benefit? He receives no closure.
In our punitive system, the criminal is not rehabilitated, but rather taught how to become a better criminal. In Norway, prisons are not prisons, but rehabilitation centres where people learn why what they did is wrong. In prison you are not taught what you did is wrong, but are encouraged to do activities such as participating clubs focusing on art, movies, and books. Even then, you are not forced to do anything.
Yes, I know I said in another thread that it is worse to rot in prison than to the death penalty, but it is even better to rehabilitate criminals more than both of those combined.
I am also not saying that clubs and classes in prisons should be removed, but I am asking for rehabilitation centres in prison. In the long run, it would be better since it would prevent repeat offenders and actually help society.
He is saying that just by being in prison, you will learn from your mistake. What if you were put in jail for something you will most likely never do again because it was a freak accident?
It IS important what we call it. The whole idea behind Retributive Justice is that the punishment fits the crime. Yes, someone is being punished, but this happens in alot of other ideas of Justice. Because the punishment should be according to the crime, this would be Retributive Justice.
Whatever you call it, it isn't Justice to the criminal nor the victim since the offender is most likely to do it.
So, by comming a crime that ends him in rehab, and he pretends that he is cured, and he goes out back to society to commit another crime, this isn't a repeat offender? That statement is true according to your above logic.
He is, but even if he wasn't rehabilitated, the outcome would've been the same.
Because we have not enacted a true system of Retributive Justice.
If we can't even punish a criminal according to the crime he has commited, than recidivism will increase until this is possible. Recidivism will do down, once a true system of Retributive Justice has been achieved.
We can't do this. The eighth amendment prevents this.
Thats irrelevant to this point. Saudia Arabia publicaly executes its criminals who have recieved the death sentence. And wouldn't you know, they have low levels of crime. Obviously, this is sending a message to possible criminals that this is a possible outcome of your crime.
Death sentence does not deter people if, in the moment of the crime, they are not thinking about the consequence.
The US Justice system is divided into two parts: The Adult Justice System, and the Juvenile Justice System. The Former deals primarily with punishment (Retributive Justice), and the Latter downplays punishment, and stresses rehabilitation more (Restorative Justice).
The American Law Institute observed in 2008 that "85.4% of the violent crimes commited by juveniles required what is considered legally "remeditation"; this entails will and responsiblitly for the action to be committed. Of this percentage almost two thirds of the offenders were not prosecuted as adults, this lack resulted in a recidivism rate of 94%"
This shows that Juveniles who are kept in the Juvenile Justice System, a system of Restorative Justice, actually had higher rates of recidivism as compared to those Juveniles transfered to the Adult Justice System, a system of Retributive Justice. This also disprooves your statement that most murders are 'acts of passion', as 85.4% of the violent crimes committed by juveniles were acts of premeditation.
Give me a link.
They would NOT do that. If a true system of Retributive Justice was in place, the ex-convict would be aware of the consequences of his actions. Therefore, because he would fear the results of his actions, he would not do those negative actions. If he did, he would recive harsher and harsher punishments until he learned that lesson.
Then he would become homeless. Actually, he would try not to get caught even HARDER.
What if you were put in jail for something you will most likely never do again because it was a freak accident?
Why would you be put into jail for a freak accident? Better yet, why should you be convicted in the Justice system, regardless of what the Justice System is (Rehabilitative or Retributive) for a freak accident?
Whatever you call it, it isn't Justice to the criminal nor the victim since the offender is most likely to do it.
I don't see what you're saying here.
He is, but even if he wasn't rehabilitated, the outcome would've been the same.
No, it wouldn't. In Retributive Justice, a criminal's punishment is based upon his crime. This sends a message to other possible-criminals, and prevents future crime.
Death sentence does not deter people if, in the moment of the crime, they are not thinking about the consequence.
If this is true, than how come countries that have public executions have lower murder rates? Its sends a message to all people, and as they see it over and over and over again, it becomes drilled into their heads that murder doesn't pay. Ergo, they will NOT murder.
Give me a link.
Statistic came from a PDF file my school bought for the Debate team. Coach took out all the statistics, and gave them to us over 5 pages. So I only had to read 5 pages, rather than 49 pages.
Then he would become homeless.
So, instead of trying to better his position and get a job, he would be content to sit on a sidewalk all day?
Actually, he would try not to get caught even HARDER.
But a Retributive Justice system would send out the message that crime DOES NOT pay. Even if your statement was true, the possible outcome would be enough to deter future crime.
Why would you be put into jail for a freak accident? Better yet, why should you be convicted in the Justice system, regardless of what the Justice System is (Rehabilitative or Retributive) for a freak accident?
There have been countless incidents. It doesn't matter what actually happened, what matters is that the prosecutor puts you in prison.
I don't see what you're saying here.
Go on Google Translator to find out.
No, it wouldn't. In Retributive Justice, a criminal's punishment is based upon his crime. This sends a message to other possible-criminals, and prevents future crime.
Like I said before, the punishment does not deter the criminals if most crimes are crimes of passion.
If this is true, than how come countries that have public executions have lower murder rates? Its sends a message to all people, and as they see it over and over and over again, it becomes drilled into their heads that murder doesn't pay. Ergo, they will NOT murder.
Prove it. Give me statistics.
Statistic came from a PDF file my school bought for the Debate team. Coach took out all the statistics, and gave them to us over 5 pages. So I only had to read 5 pages, rather than 49 pages.
How convenient.
So, instead of trying to better his position and get a job, he would be content to sit on a sidewalk all day?
If he a crack dealer, would you say he is apt for business administration?
But a Retributive Justice system would send out the message that crime DOES NOT pay. Even if your statement was true, the possible outcome would be enough to deter future crime.
So would a Rehabilitation Justice System.
I find it funny how you make no mention of how the eighth amendment would not allow for a Retributive System. In theory, both would work. I am not denying that Retributive Systems do work, but it is Draconian and not allowed in our society. What we have a developed is a system that is in between Retributive and Rehabilitative. The current one does not work, so we must seek the one that will work AND is legal.
I was referring to BaronScot's post, probably should've quoted...
What about people who sell crack cocaine as their only source of money? What do you expect them to do once they get out? They have no money. No house. No food. What will they do for money? The only thing they know how. Sell crack cocaine.
If they have no money where are they going to get product? As far as I know dealers don't have loan policies.
There have been countless incidents. It doesn't matter what actually happened, what matters is that the prosecutor puts you in prison.
Than that would be an un-JUST action on the part of the JUSTice System.
Go on Google Translator to find out.
Nice Ad Hominem.
Like I said before, the punishment does not deter the criminals if most crimes are crimes of passion.
According to the Statistical Yearbook published by the Ministry of Finance and National Economy, the most common crimes in 1988 were theft (7,553 cases), the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol (5,085 cases), altercations and quarreling (3,651 cases), and moral offenses (2,576 cases). There were fifty-six murders and 340 cases of attempted and threatened murder. There were twenty-nine cases of arson and 574 cases involving forgery or fraud.
Crimes subject to the death sentence included murder, apostasy from Islam, adultery, drug smuggling, and sabotage. Under certain conditions, **** and armed robbery could also lead to execution. Executions could be carried out by beheading, firing squad, or stoning of the convicted person in a drugged state. All seventeen executions carried out in 1990 were by beheading.
Doesn't matter. IF the punishment fits the crime, it will deter others. I believe this would apply to your next point as well.
How convenient.
Meh. Don't believe me than.
If he a crack dealer, would you say he is apt for business administration?
I would say that he would have a certain advantage over others. I'm sure he as a crack dealer would want to make the most profit, so with the right training, this same philosophy could be applied to the business world.
I find it funny how you make no mention of how the eighth amendment would not allow for a Retributive System.
Because it doesn't apply. A punishment that fits your crime isn't cruel and unusual. Unless the manner of it being given it, like executing you through drowning in maple syrup or something like that.
Than that would be an un-JUST action on the part of the JUSTice System.
It is.
Nice Ad Hominem.
Do you even know what that is?
According to the Statistical Yearbook published by the Ministry of Finance and National Economy, the most common crimes in 1988 were theft (7,553 cases), the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol (5,085 cases), altercations and quarreling (3,651 cases), and moral offenses (2,576 cases). There were fifty-six murders and 340 cases of attempted and threatened murder. There were twenty-nine cases of arson and 574 cases involving forgery or fraud.
Crimes subject to the death sentence included murder, apostasy from Islam, adultery, drug smuggling, and sabotage. Under certain conditions, **** and armed robbery could also lead to execution. Executions could be carried out by beheading, firing squad, or stoning of the convicted person in a drugged state. All seventeen executions carried out in 1990 were by beheading.
These statistics don't prove your point. One is about the number of crimes there were in 1988. The other one is about the punishment that they use in Saudi Arabia.
Meh. Don't believe me then.
Fix'd.
I would say that he would have a certain advantage over others. I'm sure he as a crack dealer would want to make the most profit, so with the right training, this same philosophy could be applied to the business world.
You have to have at least a bachelor's degree, and to be hired by a firm you would need two years residency, if they accept you.
Because it doesn't apply. A punishment that fits your crime isn't cruel and unusual. Unless the manner of it being given it, like executing you through drowning in maple syrup or something like that.
No, but being mentally tortured is cruel and unusual.
No, but being mentally tortured is cruel and unusual.
Says who? How do you decide this? You cannot say that something can be aptly described by a relative measurement. Cruelty is relative. Unusual is also relative.
If I didn't know what it was, than why would I call you out for it?
The other one is about the punishment that they use in Saudi Arabia.
Exactly. Harsher Punishment = Less Crime.
You have to have at least a bachelor's degree, and to be hired by a firm you would need two years residency, if they accept you.
If he can't go backwards to a life of crime because the punishment is too much of a deterent, than he will choose to go forward, and better his own situation. It seems to me that you're almost saying that the poor stay poor.
[quote][quote]No, but being mentally tortured is cruel and unusual.
Says who? How do you decide this? You cannot say that something can be aptly described by a relative measurement. Cruelty is relative. Unusual is also relative.[/quote] Me.[/quote]
What makes you think you can tell us whether a punishment is cruel or not? Where are your credentials? What makes you so qualified?
I must say that the idea of a rehab. justice system is interesting, although it presents few flows. Like it was mentioned in a post above, this kind of system requiers a great will to change onself, plus you are assuming that murderers are actully killing for a "lausible" reason (which i find rediculous, no killing should be pardonned, nor forgiven). Some people kill out of craziness, other out of rage and some because they can. When dealing with this problem we should exterminate it at it's roots, i'm talking about preventive methods ex. educat, occupie the people with work (because most of the crimes are comitted out of financial difficulties). there is a saying in french "it's better to prevent then to heal"
Says who? How do you decide this? You cannot say that something can be aptly described by a relative measurement. Cruelty is relative. Unusual is also relative.
. . . which is why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and decide what constitutes cruel and unusual. I don't know how far towards retributive the Supreme Court would let us get, however.
Exactly. Harsher Punishment = Less Crime.
How does the presence of a list of punishments in Saudi Arabia lead to this? All your source has done is list harsh punishments. You have no statistics to illustrate that harsher punishment = less crime, so you'll need to provide some. Is there less crime in Saudi Arabia? If so, has it been shown that there is less crime because of harsher punishments, or is there no definite connection? If there's no definite connection, the best you can do is an inductive argument.
If I didn't know what it was, than why would I call you out for it?
I like how you avoid the question by asking me another. Since you are either too lazy to do it or know you will be proven wrong if you do it, I will do it for you.
Ad hominem s when I demean your argument by using a personal attack. An example of which is:
Maverick4 can't talk about what Justice is, he's never been in prison!
or
Maverick4 can't say that retribution works more effectively, he has never experienced it.
I did neither of those things.
Exactly. Harsher Punishment = Less Crime.
A list of punishments does not prove anything. That's like me saying:
Banana sundae, strawberry fruitcakes, apple cream, cream-fudge strawberry ice cream, whipped cream apples, and chocolate ice cream. That's why there is a lot of desserts in our country.
That and what thisisnotanalt said.
"it's better to prevent then to heal"
I could not agree more. The thing is, we have not found the root of the problem. We cannot prevent crime, nor can we deter it.
The thing is, we have not found the root of the problem. We cannot prevent crime, nor can we deter it.
well like i said before most of the crimes are commited out of financial difficulties, that's the origin of the problem. What it implies; people are forced to commit crimes because they want to eat, they need a roof, they want to provide for their children. While i do agree that the rehab justice system is the way to go, we forget one important thing, many convicts are recidivists. Due to the fact that after they are freed they don't have a job, plus it's harder to find a job for a convict (which makes them do it again).
