Rayman Pirate-Community

Adsolution wrote:

Dart wrote:unless the criminal did something beyond the shadow of a doubt and that person is responsible for something extremely awful, like terrorism for example

And what is murdering a terrorist already safe from doing any more harm going to accomplish?

I strongly take issue with the mindset where people feel losing their composure suddenly becomes okay after reaching some totally arbitrary threshold.

It's more the idea that should said terrorist ever see freedom that they will go back to doing terrorism more than any emotional reason really.

Why would they ever get out of prison?

I'm voting No! because not only is not a necessary process, but it's also prone to execute the wrong people and there's been too many cases of the justice system deeming it fine to inject someone when clearly there was still data they didn't properly analyse. I don't understand how anyone can vouch for the penalty being a greater good when we know like 3-4% of US executions alone turn out to be innocent. Even if it was less than a percent, anyone dying from a procedure that didn't necessarily need to happen is enough reason to abolish it.

Is the death penalty moral? In the case of a Tsarnaev (Boston bomber) who killed four, disabled hundreds of people, kidnapped a guy, had a shootout with cops, and intended to do it all again, I'm not very compassionate about whether he feels robbed of his rights. That being said, the penalty is in clear violation of human rights, and I don't believe in "eye-for-an-eye" justice. I also think it's hypocritical to say that locking someone up with a "it could happen anytime" thought and literally executing them is acceptable but torture isn't - where do you draw a line of what's "too" cruel?

I vote yes.

It's not very interesting to just say yes or no, you have to explain yourself!

Fine.

Some crimes deserve death, prison is not an amusent park, but I just hate the idea that upon killing 25 persons someone can find food and shelter for an entire life and can still have the right to communicate or even be, when other innocent people are starving in the streets of the same country.
Like in France as an example, one can basically kill as much people as he wants in a single day and get out with 24 years of jail, thus ain't normal, I will seem a bit Vieux Jeu here, but at least Russian gulags did a good job at "recycling" human assets, this is just as an example of course, the majority of the gulag workers were innocent, but at least prisoners weren't just a waste of money and food.
I could continue but I don't have the mood nor the time to write a long message.

I wouldn't underestimate the types of prisons those people are shipped off to. In the case of Tsarnaev, who I mentioned, I think there's a case to be made that the death penalty is more humane than the prison he would otherwise be kept in for a lifetime - One where people are kept isolated 23 hours a day in bathroom-sized cells and intentionally kept healthy and forcefed so they can't suicide out of their sentence, which is straight up torture. If I'm not mistaken the US is home to several of the most dangerous, miserable prisons in the world, and I believe France has one too.

incognito wrote:I will seem a bit Vieux Jeu here, but at least Russian gulags did a good job at "recycling" human assets, this is just as an example of course, the majority of the gulag workers were innocent, but at least prisoners weren't just a waste of money and food.

lol gulags are a gay example but I agree with your point, I think programs like having prisoners make school desks are a good thing.

I think rehabilitation is the better option wherever possible. Making prisons a horrible place doesn't usually help rehabilitate, and in some cases, seems to instead further criminal behaviour. I know here, we have a bit of a problem with radicalisation in prisons here, so much so that they've had to put some folks in isolation.

However, I feel at the same time there are cases in which there are folks who are too dangerous or too unhinged to be let loose. I did vote for certain exceptions, but of course, the question there is, what exceptions?

Master wrote: the question there is, what exceptions?

Precisely why I didn't voted for that option.

It's a fair point, but I'd rather try to be restrictive then allow it be used openly. Mistakes can happen, and in these cases, that can be fatal.

Exceptions means particularly shitty cases, like an Osama Bin Laden for example.

Master wrote:However, I feel at the same time there are cases in which there are folks who are too dangerous or too unhinged to be let loose.

But they're in prison for life, not going anywhere. I'm not opposed to high-security prison, as long as nothing that happens in them is torturous and inmates have the decision to be put on death row.

Fair point, but at the same time, if they end up having such an influence that they end up causing more problems for the world at large, by things like radicalisation, I do wonder what else can be done. Isolation is something that I believe is applied, and I guess it beats using the penalty and creating a potential icon. But at the same time, is it worth the risk?

Isolation is torture and shouldn't be used under any circumstances, it's like being consciously dead. As long as the prisoner is kept in a prison with the right security and guarding there's nothing they can do, isolation is just like the penalty an extra step of cruelty that doesn't -need- to be taken.

I agree, but at the same time, given how hazardous prison duty is, and how we've had cuts here, do we have enough resources to sufficiently guard and secure prisoners in such a manner? We've had a few prison riots here in the past few months if memory serves, and the shortage of staff and morale has not helped.

Inside employment and training is the way to go. I've seen it first hand and it works. Sure, make them serve their time but treat them like they're capable human beings and the end result will be far rosier.

Keane wrote:

incognito wrote:I will seem a bit Vieux Jeu here, but at least Russian gulags did a good job at "recycling" human assets, this is just as an example of course, the majority of the gulag workers were innocent, but at least prisoners weren't just a waste of money and food.

lol gulags are a gay example but I agree with your point, I think programs like having prisoners make school desks are a good thing.

I have to weirdly agree with this, though I'm quite afraid of the places it could go (like a gulag).

I think so long as it's not devolved into something akin to slave labour, it's a reasonable expectation. It still allows for rehabilitation, but ensures that some contribution is made regardless.

I don't think a few prison riots are enough to justify it, because to me, the answer to that would just be to hire more staff of introduce better security rather than execute prisoners before tbey can riot.

Ideally yes, but that relies on having the funding necessary to do so. I guess this is one of the areas where if we can get robotics far enough, we may have a far better and possibly more compassionate solution. Though of course, having robots do everything could have a dystopian edge if not applied correctly.

Given how nonexistent prison budgets are, I think even the most miniscule reallocation of resources could solve the issue ten times over. Discarding human life as an alternative is abhorrent.

Hmm, I can't say I understand how governments do their budgeting, but yes, I think allocated sufficient resources should be done if possible. I didn't mean to imply that we should execute those we couldn't hold, my statement was more in regards to isolation. Though that too in itself isn't really humane.