In my opinion (excluding for murder or rape)
The person should first be given a warning, and then a second chance; if he abuses the second chance (assuming it is a victimless crime, such as fraud or counterfeiting), he could be given rehabilitation/education/community service, registered and tagged with a tracking device, and given a third chance. Then, only after the third chance in this situation should we resort to punishment, but then prisons become pointless, so our only real options are labour camps or death penalty.
As for violent crimes, for something like assault, we could give a warning, but also provide rehabilitation; for robbery, same thing and provide education/rehabilitation. Perhaps even a third chance if the person doesn't seriously harm the victim. However afterwards, there should be no question of using the death penalty
As for murder of passion, I think a lengthy prison sentence (say, 15 yrs) would do, during which time the prisoner is put to work and offered counseling
Rape and cold blood murder could be death penalty first offense crimes
Now, the reason I am not a fan of first offense prison sentences or lengthy prison sentences is because they do not allow the person in question to actually change their ways. If you commit a serious robbery, you could get a lengthy prison sentence; however if you regretted it and vowed not to do it again, it's too late and you get no second chance.
They should first be given opportunities to change, and only if they don't afterward, can we talk about punishment, but mostly, elimination (as they are obviously threats); we could put them to use as resources for the state, or simply execute them.
Another benefit of this system is that I am confident wrongful executions would be cut down; why? It would not be a coincidence that the same person is caught multiple times committing a crime.
The person should first be given a warning, and then a second chance; if he abuses the second chance (assuming it is a victimless crime, such as fraud or counterfeiting), he could be given rehabilitation/education/community service, registered and tagged with a tracking device, and given a third chance. Then, only after the third chance in this situation should we resort to punishment, but then prisons become pointless, so our only real options are labour camps or death penalty.
As for violent crimes, for something like assault, we could give a warning, but also provide rehabilitation; for robbery, same thing and provide education/rehabilitation. Perhaps even a third chance if the person doesn't seriously harm the victim. However afterwards, there should be no question of using the death penalty
As for murder of passion, I think a lengthy prison sentence (say, 15 yrs) would do, during which time the prisoner is put to work and offered counseling
Rape and cold blood murder could be death penalty first offense crimes
Now, the reason I am not a fan of first offense prison sentences or lengthy prison sentences is because they do not allow the person in question to actually change their ways. If you commit a serious robbery, you could get a lengthy prison sentence; however if you regretted it and vowed not to do it again, it's too late and you get no second chance.
They should first be given opportunities to change, and only if they don't afterward, can we talk about punishment, but mostly, elimination (as they are obviously threats); we could put them to use as resources for the state, or simply execute them.
Another benefit of this system is that I am confident wrongful executions would be cut down; why? It would not be a coincidence that the same person is caught multiple times committing a crime.