Prisons

Funny so have I.
Stamford, Leeds, Reading, Hull, London etc and they were the same there as they are in my home town.
Very helpful, largely efficient and not a joke.
 
Prisons are good in the sense that they protect people who have acted against the public opinion from angry mobs.
 
Norsefire said:
It's because it is inefficient.

It would be 'cheaper' to execute them, except for all the trials and lawyers and such. However in cases where guilt is without a reasonable doubt, there is no reason to keep 'em waiting more than a week.
Click to expand...

Except that everyone of them lost under the "reasonble doubt" standard and some of them lost because their lawyers were drunk or high or just didn't give a damn, some are later proved innocent by way of recanting witnesses, sometimes other people come out and confess to the crimes, sometimes prosecutors do something wrong, or cops lie, and you don't find out until later.

I have no problem with the death penalty in principle, but the fastest way to kill it off if to start executing innocent people, who were wrongfully convicted. Public support for that would not be high.

The faster you kill them, the greater the risk of that kind of error. In fact, its statistically undeniable that we already must be executing the innocent. We just give everyone enough time and opportunity to unearth the evidence that they could not adduce at trial, so the obvious ones are swept from the system.

The capital punishment system we have in place is rife with irregularities. It is really in need of reform, but the reforms it needs are not "less habeas corpus" ino.
 
What insane assylums were for mental illness, prisons are to social illness.

People should be restrained only if they are a clear threat to themselves or others. Other than that they need to be helped to overcome their problem and be allowed to make restitution to those they hurt.

Enmos said:
In all cases ?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Prisons are a waste of people and resources and they exacerbate the problem of lawlessness.
 
Enmos said:
depending on how you define being 'a threat to yourself or others'.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said a "clear threat." I.e. the person is clearly threatening harm or has actually harmed and there is no reason to believe that if allowed free those threats will not be made good on or further harm done.

What I meant was that sometimes people cannot be helped and are not going to make amends. Psychopathic serial killers for example, should we really spend good money on their 'recovery' ?
Click to expand...

Such people are clearly a threat. If we couldn't help them then they would need to be restrained or killed depending on just how dangerous they were and if we felt that there was a reasonable possibility of future treatment.

But the vast majority in prison are not those people. They are mainly political prisoners from the war on minorites, I mean "drugs." The others are people who don't understand how to live in society, but aren't particularly dangerous and could be productive citizens with a modicum of effort. Petty theives, white collor criminals, etc.

We spend billions turning them into better criminals instead of turning them into better citizens.
 
prison is just like the military except the military you usually have a choice to go. in the military you have to be up at a certain hour same with prison, in the military you have to do things when you are told like work same with prison you eat and sleep at the same time aswell.

im just posting this so i can PM somone 20 posts needed
 
lucifers angel said:
oh right i see now, so it would be cheaper to execute these people? and i dont understand why there are so many people in USA on death row and have been there (some of them) for years
Click to expand...
Because they realy dont want to kill an inocent person so they do have the right to appeal to a higher court.
Due to so many courts being over run with bull shit cases like the lady who sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot( duh!) there are a large amount of backlogged cases. You cant kill some one till you have given them their right to prove their inocence, or prove how they did not have a fair trial.
O.J. Simpson is one of those cases. He was wrongfully found not guilty for murder so when they got him for some minor bullshit they threw the book at him.
 
eddie23 said:
Because they realy dont want to kill an inocent person so they do have the right to appeal to a higher court.
Due to so many courts being over run with bull shit cases like the lady who sued McDonalds because the coffee was hot( duh!) there are a large amount of backlogged cases. You cant kill some one till you have given them their right to prove their inocence, or prove how they did not have a fair trial.
O.J. Simpson is one of those cases. He was wrongfully found not guilty for murder so when they got him for some minor bullshit they threw the book at him.
Click to expand...

yeah ok i see your point, but some of these people have been on death row for 10 years it doesnt take 10 years to build a decent case and take it to court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top