Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
Prisons should be rehabilitative wherever possible, provide humane separation of non-rehabilitory inmates from the rest of the law-abiding population when rehabilitation is not possible, and never punitive.
If the goal of a free society is to protect the rights of individuals, it is necessary to remove those people from society who cannot refrain from violating the rights of others.
It is not the place of the State to decide to "punish", but I do believe it is well within the State's authority to detain and separate.
Because of this, and because of the fact that I simply don't believe any government should have the authority and power to end the life of anyone -- regardless of what crime has been committed -- I'm opposed to anything beyond simple detention for those who are non-rehabilitative, and I believe that it is in the best interests of a free society to provide a realistic, reasonable path to rehabilitation for any who express a genuine desire for it.
I'm also of the opinion that victims of crime deserve compensation for their losses in a much greater sense than the State currently provides. Monetary damages are typically laughed at in the context of our prison system, namely in the sense that "you can't get blood from a stone".
I'm not opposed to humane work camps as being part of that rehabilitory aspect of the penal system. Production facilities and other organized working environments that enable an inmate who owes reparations to work an honest and productive -- not just busy work to earn a dime from the State -- day's work on the inside, with the non-essential portion of the inmate's salary going toward paying off whatever debt they owe their victims or victims' families. Programs of this sort do exist in spotty fashion around the US today, but most of them are eaten up by shoddy management, bureaucratic red-tape and administrative costs, so victims and their families see nothing for it. This could easily be corrected, but consistency in philosophy and approach must be mandated from the top on down, and, like so many other government-run entities, the prison systems in the United States are often mired in idiocy that would take a bulldozer to clean up.
For those who are non-rehabilitative, repeat offenders who demonstrate no desire to rejoin society as a law-abiding member, prison should be simply that: a holding pattern for those who are a danger to others and need to be held safely apart from other individuals so as to not allow them to violoate the rights of others. This should be done as humanely as possible, in my opinion, as there is no excuse for a civilized society to treat human beings like animals or worse, even if those human beings have demonstrated contempt for others and don't seem "deserving" of humane treatment.
This part I don't agree with, and it's simply because it just seems pointless to me to provide for people that can't ever amount to anything or contribute anything. I think that since they are basically the waste products of society that they should be disposed of, as efficiently as possible. They aren't worth anything because they can not operate with other people. It's not worth it to hurt other people emotionally, physical, or monetarily for these people, because they are worthless.
Here's the thing. These people are worthless in your opinion. It is also your opinion that those you deem worthless should die.
Based on you own words (in the past), you have a much broader definition of 'worthless' than many, if not most, other people. I would like you to define worthless. In your eyes, at what point is someone nothing but a drain on society, and therefore worthy of termination?
Now I know that there is one group of people that falls into this category that I'm not for terminating, and that is the elderly, but I feel that since these individuals worked their entire lives and made the world what it is that they deserve rest. The main thing I'm against is people that society keeps alive that don't contribute, or can't contribute.
V to Evonus:... I would like you to define worthless.
Evonus: there is one group of people that falls into this category that I'm not for terminating, and that is the elderly
Evonus: The main thing I'm against is people that society keeps alive that don't contribute, or can't contribute.
Evonus:... If you're going to ridicule me, don't read my post. ...
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me, princess.
Now, I'm sure we'd disagree with which punishments would be assigned for the most part, but I think we can both agree jail time is a deterrent.
Nonsense. It is only by the reading of your posts that the seeds of ridicule can be gathered without prejudice.
Tell that to people that are still dealing drugs now that in most states there are laws on the books offering life without parole for some drug trafficking offenses.
look how many people are using drugs, and then tell me that laws against drugs are an effective deterrent.
The retarded? The severely disabled?
Crack hoes don't give damn about drug laws. Neither do I.
This thread has been largely opinion based so far, so I figured I'd provide mine.
Okay, worthless as I see it is basically the point where no matter what effort, money, or time is put into someone that they can no longer ever function within the bounds of society or contribute to society. Now I know that there is one group of people that falls into this category that I'm not for terminating, and that is the elderly, but I feel that since these individuals worked their entire lives and made the world what it is that they deserve rest. The main thing I'm against is people that society keeps alive that don't contribute, or can't contribute.
Better be careful dude, there's a war on those things!
I didn't mean that you shouldn't offer your opinion. I meant that you're not stating a fact. Those beliefs are your opinions, and are, therefore, not necessarily reflective of any facts.
So, if the severely retarded/disabled end up homeless "drains on society", you believe they should be terminated.
I have some questions about your point, "no matter what effort, money, or time is put into someone that they can no longer ever function within the bounds of society or contribute to society".1. How do you determine the time/money/effort threshold?
2. How to you intend to make the law prescient enough to know what the future will hold for any given person?
2a. What about convicted killers/rapists who have gone to prison for life and/or death, who have then contributed to society from behind bars?
Total Members: 4952