Is the sentence a good or bad policy? Some states allow it, and some countries aloow it, yet others dont. Yes, I know some of might say everyone deserves to live, and most of the time i would agree with you, but what if there is a man that has been tested positive for some sort of disorder that causes him to have a strong urge to kill at random times, and he was either about to be set free in your town or put to death. What would you say? There is the unethical and the inhumane reason, but a large reason many places ban it is the cost. Some states are backed up with people on death row, because they have to pay lawyers to file paperwork, and keep those hundreds, maybe thousands, of people alive for howver long. Think, do you really want your tax dollars going there?
Incarcerated in prison they are already removed from society. Killing them from that point is to only get back at them for what they did.
There is a possibility of them escaping is there not? Also, I see no reason why one should still keep an outcast of society alive. Once you have taken a life, you forfeit your own right to it.
The point of prison is supposed to be rehabilitation. Although that is rarely the case in practice.
Yes there is that as well, though we could do a whole lot better then what we do given what we know now. Though killing a person doesn't seem like a good way for them to be rehabilitated. Actually it would seem like it would go against that point.
Though killing a person doesn't seem like a good way for them to be rehabilitated. Actually it would seem like it would go against that point.
I was simply commenting on the subject of prisons, not death sentence. I haven't advertised my opinion on that particular subject yet, I don't think. But here it goes now.
I strongly oppose death sentences. Not only does it offer no chance of rehabilitation (and as you can see, I'm a stickler for that), I consider it to be equally as bad as what arguably necessitated it. There is simply no place for the death sentence in a civilized society. The root of the problem is education and rehabilitation which so often fail those they were designed to protect and teach. By keeping the death sentence alive (sorry about that bit of lame morbid humor), we will continue to deal with the problem at the end of its course, instead of recognizing it when it's still early enough. We waste valuable resources on a frankly barbaric practice, when we could use them to improve the conditions of prisons and the rehabilitation programs. As for those who absolutely can't be rehabilitated, well, that's what solitary cells are for.
If an 20 year old goes to prison for car jacking he will come out with plans for a bank robbery. (That is the case usually.) I think death sentence should b kept in practice and drug dealers (big ones, not those who sell on streets but those who bring them in country) should b shot on sight.
If an 20 year old goes to prison for car jacking he will come out with plans for a bank robbery. (That is the case usually.)
That's exactly the problem. Rehabilitation in prisons is severely underdeveloped and underfunded. Which ties into this statement:
I think death sentence should b kept in practice and drug dealers (big ones, not those who sell on streets but those who bring them in country) should b shot on sight.
The resources that go into death sentences would be much better used on providing adequate control and psychotherapy in prisons, as I stated earlier. Here's a rough estimate of costs from 2008 (please note that this is for the state of California only, but that the costs are similar, if not higher for any country in the world):
Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.
The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
A hobo, who lives on streets,begs for money, eats the leftovers,sleeps on card board will have an opportunity to get 3 meals a day for life and sleep on a warm bed
I was simply commenting on the subject of prisons, not death sentence. I haven't advertised my opinion on that particular subject yet, I don't think. But here it goes now.
Didn't mean to say you were, just seemed to tie in well to that point.
A hobo, who lives on streets,begs for money, eats the leftovers,sleeps on card board will have an opportunity to get 3 meals a day for life and sleep on a warm bed
It's not suppose to be some sort of luxury resort as you seem to be implying. It's suppose to be there to keep those who can't play nice away from those who can and try and get them to a point where they can play nice. This doesn't mean pampering them.
A hobo, who lives on streets,begs for money, eats the leftovers,sleeps on card board will have an opportunity to get 3 meals a day for life and sleep on a warm bed
You're referring to sending the homeless in prison? I did understand the individual words, just not the meaning.
I suppose you mean that the homeless will commit crimes for the sole chance of getting to go to prison? I do hope you don't actually think the homeless are devoid of the thirst for freedom. If anything, they are more likely to long to be free (which is why, after a prolonged time on the streets, it's very difficult for them to adjust even if they do find housing and a job).
Besides, assuming that all homeless people are criminals is ignorant. Because it is certainly not the case, and while it is true that some of them are violent and prone to committing crime, you obviously aren't aware that the ones who are simply out of luck and struggling to get by are a clear majority.
Do you have any idea what kind of crime is punished by life in prison? At the very least, one would have to kill another person. And oftentimes the crime would need to be repeated to actually earn the life sentence.
I suppose it is possible to murder someone out of desperation, but for life in prison? I find it highly unlikely. Not to say that a select few wouldn't try it, but they would not be examples of people with particularly sound minds.
The chance of such a thing happening is too small to even count as a good argument against life sentence.
