Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Apr 28, 2015.
That's less of an argument for the death penalty and much more that our prison system is terrible
In an ideal world the death penalty would be fine. We don't live in an ideal world. Hell, we can't even agree on why the death penalty should be implemented. If we as a society can't even decide if the death penalty should be used as vengeance or if it should be used only on people incapable of rehabilitation and are otherwise a threat to others how can we in good conscience continue to use it?
I'm not sure how I feel about withdrawing aid from Indonesia .I can see why many feel like that but at the end of the day I dont feel the people of Indonesia should suffer
to me this whole thing points out the problem with the death penalty . you have to give due process and explore every avenue before you can use it which takes 10 years. in that 10 years a person facing death "finds" something and tries to improve themelves for the better . then when they have acheived it , its time to be shot
It seems the main reason the Indonesian executions are contentious is that the sentences are being carried out against non-Indonesian citizens. The last six months has been a constant barrage of emotional appeals to the Indonesian president and various judges, and those appeals were ignored. That's a sign that emotion wasn't really entering the equation. And these executions were carried out by 12 man firing squads and an unknown number of blanks, so it pretty well fits your criteria in that regard.
The lack of emotion in this case was probably more of a problem than a benefit. The Brazilian prisoner that faced the firing squad was mentally ill, and apparently didn't realise what was going on until he was standing in front of the guns. While Indonesia certainly isn't the only country to execute people suffering from mental illnesses (or state, if you prefer; I'm not trying to throw guilt by association into the mix), death sentences tend to be applied to murderers, not drugs offenders. The Indonesian judicial and political systems are essentially taking a stance that says "If you break the law, your background, mental state, and rehabilitative prospects don't matter, the sentence will be carried out". In the case of nonviolent offenders, this doesn't make sense, and emotional appeals might have more of a place than in the cases of violent offenders.
Yeah, it seems we're generally against people coming to our country without our express permission right now, to a hypocritical degree.
Even if a killer can be proven 100% culpable and competant, even if he/she is a serial killer with an unrepentant sadistic streak, the death penalty still has no place in the 21st century. If someone murdered somebody I cared about, would I want them to die? Yeah, I imagine I would. But should the state kill them on my behalf? As I see it, retribution doesn't serve the purpose of modern justice.
In fact, I don't even see the need for prisons to be harsh, unpleasant places, even for those who will (and should) never see release. For extreme crimes, like murder, rape, child abuse and extreme violence, punitive laws have no demonstrable effect. The death penalty, and harsh prison sentences, do not act as effective deterrents for crimes of passion or compulsion. And the vast majority of people in such situations are not sadistic psychopaths and can be rehabilitated. Norway has a low crime rate, and the lowest recidivism rate in the world, because they don't treat their prisoners like animals, and put real effort into rehabilitation and reintegration.
Some people are genuinely dangerous. Leave them locked up. But treat them like humans. It serves no purpose to kill them or make their lives a living hell, except to appease the mob. I like to think that we as a society have moved well beyond that, even if the whole "tough on crime" populist shtick does sell politically. This is why I'm glad we don't elect our judges, I trust the Charter and the rule of law far more than I trust an angry mob demanding blood.
Have to sort of disagree with your first sentence. I could see it being fitting for that exact sort of person personally. But I wouldn't be upset if it went away compleyely either. I don't hold a strong opinion regarding the death penalty.
Your comparison to Norway isn't a valid one either. We have higher poverty rates, a more diverse populous (socially and economically), a history of violence and a crappy social safety net. You can't entirely attribute Norway's social success to how they operate their prisons. Not saying your wrong, but that it's a bit hard to prove since nothing exists in a vacuum.
But they also have a mission statement of not treating people like animals
Why not both?
We should definitely treat prisoners better and attempt to help them lead more fulfilling lives outside of a jail cell. It's to everyone's benefit to do so as it will have some impact on all of our lives. I'm just saying that doing so isn't going to solve all of our problems as it's only one small part of the puzzle. People commit crimes because of poverty, social pressure, circumstance and/or mental illness. Even if we treated prisoners better they're still going back to their old neighborhoods drenched in poverty with little upward social mobility. Couple that with people pretty much refusing to hire ex-cons and gangs, if one has joined one, being quite...persuasive, that even still it won't prevent people from resorting to crime again.
My point to my response was that it seemed like he was attributing a lot of Norway's social success to how they treat prisoners and I honestly doubt it plays that big of a part. How many people in Norway even make it into prison system in the first place? Like I said, that could 100% be the reason for their success, but there's a lot more differences between Norway and North America than just how we treat our prisoners.
Rehabilitation programs and focus on reducing recidivism can actually make this not the case, which would help a great deal.
Ooops, I think I have my threads all ....ed up
What I meant to say was rehabilitation is a great idea, saved my life.
Ah, I think stopping aid is completely on the table. It's a little late now, but countries give each other money always as some part of a deal. I think it would be been pretty normal for the spam or whoever to say that they're dropping aid if they don't return the citizens, if that's what they wanted. Yes, the citizens of the aid-receiving country may get caught in the middle, but someone is always collateral damage in situations like these, and those citizens cannot be held hostage by the government in order to get aid. It's just enabling to use that argument. I'm not condoning it, but I don't see threatening to take away aid as an unfair bargaining maneuver.
My statement/response was directed toward the person suggesting that our state sanctioned killing should contain revenge, or rather, an eye for an eye punishment. The emotionless duty is reserved for the execution. By all means, have some humanity when sentencing, but if the sentence determined is death, I will not, ever, EVER condone the State torturing or brutalizing even the most dangerous and disgusting human beings that are to be removed from society.
I don't have a whole lot to say about the Indonesia example. On the one hand, I think it's pretty bad policy to execute foreign citizens for non-violent crime. But, on the other hand, drug smuggling is just one piece of a puzzle that breeds violent crime. I don't know though, this is not my fight, and I am not Indonesian nor Australian so I don't really have a dog in that fight.
I think there is a lot of value to having a public discourse about crime and punishment. It should not go away - it is very important for people with international perspectives to ask critical questions about how and why crimes are punished, it is our responsibility as civilized people to try to make good decisions about this.
Since moving to Singapore, I have been really shocked about how the locals here feel about crime and punishment. if they imposed the death penalty for jaywalking, I bet it would get good public support. They impose vicious punishments for trivial infractions, and they like it that way.
Right now theres a little dumbass kid who made a rude YouTube video critical of the former prime minister, he's been locked up ever since; to the delight of the populace. Last month a Canadian tourist opened a (unlocked) door on the subway and went into the conductor's room. Didn't do anything in there, just walked in. He was imprisoned for over a month, I don't know if they let him leave yet. Apparently he sports a "long hair" haircut, which is a massive red flag to the authorities around here, so I don't think the odds are in his favor.
There's a lot of common sense truth to the "their house, their rules" thing, but it remains important to have these conversations, to be informed and critical. Nothing is going to change here in Singapore, but Indonesia is changing rapidly and there is opportunity to change and adopt more humane guidelines.
EDIT: It sounds like I'm bagging on the local government here pretty bad, which I guess I am, but I forgot to recognize that the bar out here in Southeast Asia for governments in general is extremely low. <cough> Malaysia, <cough>
The really crappy thing about it is that the crimes were committed 10 years ago. Both men at were aged in the early twenties at the time. During their 10 years in prison they completely changed & grew up a lot (and there is a lot of evidence that suggests that they truely did become much better people while in prison). They had grown into two men that had something positive to contribute to society. But Indonesia decided to kill them anyway. Clearly they care more about punishing people than rehabilitating them. Joko is scum, pure and simple.
In cases of career criminals, murder, DNA proven rape, and pedophilia, I am FULLY in support of execution. Not a 30 year stay before hand, but give them the due process, and 2 weeks after the final call and then fry the scumbags.
In my opinion, life in solitary confinement is WAY worse than death.
Just think about it, being in a tiny concrete room with basically NOTHING in it, for 23 hours a day, for the rest of your life. It's literally hell.
If I had the choice between spending my next 50-70 years like that I'd just rather they off me.
The problem with DNA is that there is collusion between cops, DA's and labs.
When they all are in agreement that you are going away... Then you are.
Evidence needs to be handled by a non biased , independent agency.
There's a growing set of voices starting to try to classify solitary as psychological torture, as we learn more about its full ramifications on our brains.
I was pretty certain that solitary confinement is indisputably cruel and unusual punishment and the united states of america is one of the last civilized countries barbaric enough to do it.
I'm against the death penalty in all cases on moral grounds, but even if you don't think it is immoral, I think you should still be against it because mistakes are made all the time. Many death row inmates in the U.S. have been acquitted and released in light of new evidence and forensic techniques.