The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

Seems rather unlikely to be honest- most of the rest of us civilised countries get along just fine without the death penalty.

Do you have any other arguments as to why the death penalty is the only form of justice in this case? 'Because my book said so' seems to be a weak justification.

Will this make the death penalty cheaper than life imprisonment?

As an aside: it would be a fairly scary prospect for the value of someone's life to decrease to the point where we would rather kill them than keep them alive because it is cheaper that way.

Apologies, but I'm having trouble keeping track of your thoughts on this matter. Is, or is not, locking someone up for life less humane than killing them?

I trust that you realise following this logic leads us to realise that the correct punishment for theft is for the state to...steal from the criminal.

And why does making concessions not extend as far as sparing someone's life?

 

In many ways, I guess you could say that is right. What do you think fines are? What it would lead to, however, is prisons never been used. Guess it would take care of the over crowding problem

 

By the way, how did we get into a dispute on capital punishment again? We were talking about prisons filling up... and IIRC even China doesn't have that many executions to make a noticable difference. BTW, how many executions were there in the US last year?

 

Number of death penalties by year, in the US.

It also varies greatly from state to state, so if you murder in Texas, you're much more likely to be killed than if you murder in New York.

Some more data :
Executions in the US from 1608
Executions in the US from 1930
Prisoners under death sentence in the US from 1953

 

So by valuing the life of a murderer above that of an innocent law abiding citizen, you are more civilized? I don't buy it.

This was in refutation of a point made theologically. It has as much relevence politically as statements from any other religious source--like the quote from the Pope that was previously posted. Thank you for discarding that quote.

Currently, total cost of the execution is cost of due process plus the cost of time improsoned. If we can speed the process along with more lawyers and more judges, you decrease the cost of keeping them imprisoned in less efficient conditions, potentially dropping it to below that of life imprison with no parole.

It is even scarier that someone who commits such ghastly crimes as those who are candidates for the death penalty is valued the same as a decent, law abiding citizen.

Theoretically, keeping someone locked in a cage, isolated from their family and friends and unable to live and work where they want with NO hope to return to their family, friends or anywhere they want to go is inhumane. To imprison them beyond the time of due process and execution is needlessly cruel. In practice, however, they live better than many people in the poorest segments of society, such as the elderly, disabled or those needing social assistance.

But how do you differentiate that from taxes? In this case, much like the rapist, this is impractical. Incarceration, in these cases, becomes a concession. In cases of Murder, execution is practical...

Because that values the Criminal's live above the decent person that they murdered. In the case of murder, justice can ONLY be satisfied with the death of the offender. The concession is simply that we aren't torturing, beating or raping them first.

Capitial Punishment was suggested as part of the solution tot he problem. The thing about capital punishment is that it draws such criticism from it's opponents. There have been a few good points brought forward, but on some level it degenerates to the proponents being viewed as barbarians, while the opponents viewed as overly tolerant of crime.

 

(1) Not killing a murder is NOT placing the murderers life greater than the victim. THat is absolute bull****, Gnarf. If you're going to make such a emotional statement like that I'd like to see some more logic behind it. We have already covered that, to which you previous had no reply. I can repeat my reasoning if you like, however I feel you will just continue to turn a blind eye to it.

(2) How can you explain my list of countries WITH the death penalty? Out of all those countries, I would say that TWO are developed countries. TWO is hardly a rule. Unless of course you wish to argue that these undeveloped countries (often with dictators and very poor human rights) are more "civilized" than OECD countries. That is an argument I would truely love to see.

You could also look over time, and see the same thing. As time has passed, more and more countries have forsaken the death penalty. Are you going to say we were more civilized 100 years ago than we are today? This might be slightly easier to argue than the above line, but it would still be interesting to see.

(3) It is not the fact that the pope said it that makes me believe that statement is right. Mr Rogers the local grocery store owner could have said it for all the difference it makes. Do not dismiss something due to the mouth it came out of. Consider each fact with a fresh mind. THe unforunate thing is fanatics tend to lose the ability to do such a thing.

(4) If prisons are too nice, why not simply make them worse? Surely the fact that prisons are too nice isn't an excuse to murder people?

(5) Where the **** did I say I was overly tolerant of crime? I have never (nor has anyone else) mentioned that criminals should be let off. We just have a different idea of what punishment should be. I say imprison them, you want blood.


Okay, Gnarf, let's try this another way (hopefully after you address each of the above points). We obviously disagree morally. What arguments FOR the death penalty do you have that do not involve morals? So far, you have only been on the defence when it comes down to non-moral arguments, so I'd like to give you a chance to take the offencive position now, with non-moral arguments.

 

Well, of course, wasn't that the original problem?

As you are likely aware, I said what I did only to show that the logic Gnarf used was lacking, not because I thought it was a good idea.

Well, one could argue that- look at the points Rotku has made. However, that wasn't what I was claiming. If you re-read it, you should be able to see that I never claimed one country was more civilised than another. It was a response to your claim that removal of the death penalty would lead to:

My point was that, as Rotku mentioned earlier, most developed countries don't use the death penalty, yet are not in the dire situation that you envisage.

I don't have a problem with quotes from relevant authorities being used to support an argument. However, to repeat myself, you do not seem to have any arguments other than your book saying so (although feel free to supply some). This makes your current position rather weak.

Just because someone is not killed, does not mean they are valued equally. It appears a bit absurd to claim that unexecuted criminals are thought of in the same way as normal citizens. They quite clearly are not.

So, in short, you are no longer claiming that life imprisonment is less humane than execution.

Well, taxes apply to everyone, do they not?

Impractical? Really? We may just be able to find people willing to rape rapists. However, even if we are not, we could simply build machines that could do it- remember that the US builds electric chairs, why not a 'rape machine'? No, I do not believe practicality is an issue here.

 

The Victim, who was likely a law abiding citizen, did not receive adequate protection and was killed.

The Killer, who committed one of the worst crimes under the law, is one who the state goes out of their way to keep alive.

Now who is more valued under that system. That sounds logical, not emotional.

With a couple exceptions, they are not as pretentious as to think themselves morally better than other nations. It seems that nations that abandon the death penalty are just more arrogant than other nations.

Then you tell me that my Mormon theological arguements are irrelevent. You only accept a Theological arguement when it suits your cause. This is hypocritical. Next!

Finally, something we agree on. Even though it may not increase Murder rates, it does contribute to over crowding and drives up the expense of incarceration.

Giving a criminal less of a sentence than they deserve is letting them off. You would go out of your way to keep someone alive, I simply want justice.

You haven't been paying attention, this IS a moral issue. Activists have used their influence to drive the cost up. While they have had a positive influence in making sure that the evidence is processed more cleanly and that the Lawyers do their job properly, they now use the increased cost to try to get government to eliminate the death penalty entirely. This loses credibility, because they have made it less practical, not the state. Any arguements against capital punishment boil down to either a need to fix the system, or to abandon it because of problems that the lobbyists have created. It's almost circular in nature.

I wish I could back pedal like that...

Not yet, but give them time. When the law loses it's teeth, people are less likely to obey said law. Eventually, nobody will pay attention to the law. It doesn't happen over night, but it does happen...

So "relevent" means making your point, and anything opposed is irrelevent. By that logic, you must realize that your posts are irrelevent, because it doesn't make my point. But then again, opposition to capital punishment is based on the double standard to begin with, why should the arguement be any different...

You are right. If you had your way, the State would go out of it's way to keep these people alive, where they obviously did not feel the same about their victims...

No, I'm claiming that the prison system needs to be looked at more closely. There are certain perks that they get for free that those I mentioned can't afford.

Doesn't the US Constitution forbid corporal punishment? Your idea is unconstitutional. Capital punishment is not. In fact, if done right, life in prison with no parole should be cruel and unusual punishment.

 

Okay, time to play the quoting game!

No, try again.

If:
(a) The victim did not recieve adequate protection and was killed;
and
(b) The criminal went on to receive greater protection in the same situation;
then your argument holds.

OR

(a) The state refused to take the life of the criminal;
and
(b) The state took the life of the victim;
then your argument holds.

OR

(a) Person A murders Person B and recieves Punishment X;
and
(b) Person C then murders Person A, in an indenticle situation; and recieved Punishment Y, where Punishment X is less than Punishment Y;
then your argument holds.

In which case, I would agree with you. All three are wrong and we should do what we can to prevent then.

However, what you are saying is as good as lying, as far as I'm concerned. It's twisting logic to such an extent that ones jaw really does drop open.

You're arguing that the state values the life of the criminal over the life of the victim. Let us take a look at what really happens:

• The state protects Person A and Person B identically, as there is currently no difference between them. No one has committed a crime yet.
  Positive effect for both Person A and Person B due to State action.
  
• Person A murders Person B.
  The state does not play a role.
  
• The state punishes Person A for murdering Person B.
  Negative effect for Person A and no effect to Person B due to State action.

Where does the state favour the murderer?

Didn't know you were a politican, Gnarf. Please go back and answer the question. You have not addressed why (a) those countries WITH capital punishment have a very poor humans rights rating (often even according to the US State Department); and (b) there is a direct correlation between time and the removal of capital punishment.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. NO WHERE did I say that. Saying I said so is either purposely lying, or simple foolishness. This is the second time in two posts that you have tried shoving words in my mouth. Please either provide a quote where I said what you claim or apologies for your mistake.

Heh, we've agreed on this from the begining. Look back to where LKD first raised the issue

Anyway, would you agree with me if I said that if prison luxuries were removed then imprisonment would be a better alternative than killing someone?

How much time? I live in a country where capital punishment was first abolished in 1935 - that's 83 years ago. Today our crime is at a level which nearly every single murder makes national headlines, and tends to stay there for weeks. And I'm really not exaggerating here.

However, for you to use such as reason does not hold. Innocent until proven guilty. Once I see proof that the removal of capital punishment leads to half the population been murdered, as you claimed, then I will consider jumping to your side of the fence. Infact, from my understanding, the current imperical evidence avalible does not lead support to the belief that the removal of capital punishment increases crime.

A report from Amnesty Internation stated the following:

"Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 population, 44 per cent lower than in 1975 and the lowest rate in three decades. Although this increased to 2.0 in 2005, it remains over one-third lower than when the death penalty was abolished."

To argue purely on moral grounds here obviously isn't working. Morals are something that people can disagree with. Infact, you may be surprised to hear this, but many of your statements have been not based on morals.

If your only argument FOR killing people is off moral grounds, then you'd bet to go and start trying to find another issue to champion. To take someone's life purely from moral is horrible. You see, as I just said, morals people can disagree on, facts are harder (although you certainly try). I suggest you go and look at your arguments and see which ones can be backed up by facts. I have provided a number of facts and figures supporting my belief, I have yet to see one set in favour of your argument.

 

Here we go...

As Rotku said, what you are claiming is not based on logic. In an effort to make his point clearer: your argument would work if the state had the choice of saving the victim (but didn't) and then decided to spare the murderer. This is obviously not the case.

While I don't believe that what Rotku said was hypocritical, it should be noted that hypocrisy on the part of the arguer alone is not sufficient to defeat an argument.

Oh dear. Did you actually read what I wrote? Here it is:

Note that 'the rest of us civilised countries' does not exclude the US. In fact, it even implies that the US is one of the civilised countries referred to. To claim otherwise is to show a failure to grasp the meaning of the sentence.

It does? When? Where?

Do you actually have anything at all to support this claim?

Nope. You appear to have missed my point again, although I fear that this time it may have been intentional. I have not once claimed that relevant = supporting only my point of view. Please, go back and check if you are unsure.

My problem with your quote, as I have already stated, is that there appears to be nothing else to back your argument up, and a religious quote is not enough to support an argument like this on its own. Again I ask, do you have anything else?

You appear to be saying 'out of its way' an awful lot, but, yep, that is fairly accurate.

I would certainly agree with you here; I don't think anyone in this thread has expressed the opposite point of view.

However, I posed the question because you had previously called imprisonment 'inhumane'. I wasn't asking whether you thought that it should be, merely whether you were still maintaining that claim with the prison system as it currently is.

To be honest, I would imagine that it did. but would not have known for sure. Happily, I am not an American citizen.

Part of the point of these discussions is to talk about what should be, as well as what is. Just because the constitution permits capital punishment, it does not follow that capital punishment must be right. Similarly, just because my idea (unpleasant as it is) is not permitted, does not mean that it should not be permitted. If we see the constitution as being morally incorrect in today's society, then it should be changed.

 

That is infact the case. The Criminal had motive to kill the victim. Now others have motive to kill the murderer, but can't because he is actively locked in a prison. Greater protection than the law abiding citizen received. By your own admission, the argement holds. Since or implies I only need to defend 1, therefore, I have that one.

Um, the victim is already dead at this point, therefore your arguiement is moot as the State can't possibly kill the victim.

Actually, when one person is convicted of First degree Murder and gets Life without parole, while another gets death, then there is an unequal punishment there. Even for the same non capital crime, sentences vary beyond that which is reasonable.

Are you saying I've finally learned to play here in the Alleys? I see all manner of here...

You must remember that the state must tailor the punishment to fit the crime. If the state refuses to kill person A after he murders person B, then the state is still favouring person A over person B.

Were you, or were you not the person who quoted the Pope when he spoke against Capital Punishment? I believe so. I couldn't find where you made any acknowledgement whatsoever of my theological point. Actions speak louder than words. You brought up theology to make your point, but do not address the theological counterpoint I bring up. No mistake here.

Sure Guantanomo Bay or the Rudolph Hesse suite in the Tower of London sounds tempting to deal with a Murderer, but is it really better? Justice demands an equal punishment to the crime committed. And for Murder, that is Death.

Someone needs to pay more attention. Someone quoted Ghandi when he said "An Eye for an Eye only makes the world blind". To that I replied that it opnly would happen if half the world went around gouging the eyes out of the other half. If less than half the population gouges out the eyes of people, and does not approach half of the population, then it will not make the world blind, and thus does not apply here.

I would like to remind you that correlatin does not mean causation. If there are other factors within the culture that caused the reduction of the Murder rate or that of any other crime, that happenned independent of the removal of the Death Penalty.

I believe I have addressed the practicality. It does nothing to hammer what ought to be without working on how to make it happen.

By having the State deal with it the process is sanitized and the average citizen is removed from the action of killing.

People disagree on Morality all the time, and as Morality is pushed aside, trouble increases. It explains a great many facts that people will can quote...

Then either the earlier quote from the Pope is irrelevent, or my religious quote is valid. It can't be applied both ways.

Which is why the abolition of the Death Penalty is unjust. No amount of time in a prison cell can make up for a life taken unjustly. The only just punishment is the death of the offender.

If the person has people he cares about, and cannot be with them, then yes, it is inhumane. In the event that there is nobody he cares about, then Leaving him alive is inhumane...

That's where juris prudence comes in to determine if the death penalty is appropriate for the individual case. The process in these situations need to be streamlined to make it more cost effective.

There's a difference between killing someone and torturing them. As tempting as torture sounds, it is not right. Just kill them and be done with it.

Agreed, but then again, how seriously is it taken?

 

Actually, as far as I can see, it only holds if the state is aware of a person's desire to kill in both situations. While the state may be indirectly protecting the criminal by locking them up as they may know someone wants to kill the crminal, they would only be favouring the criminal by this logic if they knew the victim was in danger and did nothing to protect them.

Do you mean in the Alleys in general, or in this particular thread? If it is this one, you have had many opportunities to point out where this has occured.

You are yet to prove this.

Does it not seem rather unlikely that removing the death penalty would cause problems for a country when, as far as I am aware, none of the countries that have banned it have suffered problems of the like you have envisaged? Sure, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but surely some countries' murder rates would have risen?

Secondly, assuming for argument's sake that there are other factors involved, would everyone not prefer a country which puts these factors into practice and has a lower murder rate, along with no death penalty. Out of curiosity, would you still advocate the death penalty if it was shown that removing it would decrease the murder rate?

Ok, let us say that it is irrelevant (Rotku has already stated that it doesn't matter that it was the pope who made it over anyone else). With that in mind, do you now have anything at all that supports your claim that justice requires the punishment to be equal to the crime?

We don't expect it to. However, neither do we believe that killing them makes up for the loss.

But earlier you said that:

and

The same logic that you are using dictates that the correct punishment for rape is to be raped. Your second statement shows that you believe that, if the state controls the punishment, it should be allowed to do things that we would not normally be allowed to do. It is possible to rape rapists and it would be impersonal when the state controls it. Therefore, we must do so.

If you don't wish to reach this conclusion, then there must be a flaw in your reasoning for capital punishment. If you refuse to admit that, then you are simply being inconsistant.

 

This happens in all debates about Capital punishment -- people have different interpretations of terms. "Value of human life", "human dignity", "justice", and similar words can be bent by either side of the argument.

I think that one issue that should be addressed as that of the value of human life. On a grand scale, we all would like to believe that all lives are of infinite value and therefore of equal value. Yet the fact is that this is not the way the real world works. We do not cry when someone dies in a country 5,000 miles away from us, or even someone from a different part of the same city. We cry when someone we KNOW has passed on. On an emotional level, we treat people differently.

On a legal level we do, too. A citizen of a country is entitled to certain rights. We get antsy when the State (or another entity) arbitrarily deprives someone of those rights. But when the State (or even other entity) has just cause for depriving the rights of an individual, we are . . . . less antsy, I'll say. If a citizen's behaviour damages the State or other citizens within the State, we punish them by removal of their rights -- we fine them or imprison them, or in some societies, we beat them or maim them or expose them to public ridicule. We sometimes take away their right to leave the country or perform particular roles in the society (ie: no working with the boy scouts for pedophiles). The question is what rights should the State be able to take away for particularily heinous offenses? More to the original point of this thread, what does the State do when the cost of removing the rights from criminal citizens is excessive?

On a fundamental level, proponents of the death penalty believe that the appropriate penalty for certain crimes is the removal of the greatest right of all -- life. Opponents believe it is not. Put another way, Proponents of the death penalty believe that particularily disgusting crimes mean that the criminal is NOT equal to a law abiding citizen, and in fact the level of inequality is so drastic that the criminal lo longer deserves life. Proponents believe that no crime makes a man so unequal that that man should lose his life. On a basic level, there is little that can be done to persuade people this polarized. Some people would never execute anyone, under any circumstances, while others (still people of sound mind and reasonable demeanor) feel that executions under rare circumstances are justified. Then there's those who want to kill people for jaywalking, but I feel those people are not of sound mind or reasonable demeanor.

I advocate the use of creative punishments to reduce the prison population, but in Western democracies it's difficult to do that because some smart aleck lawyer will play the "cruel and unusual" card simply on the basis that a punishment has never been done before. Any public humiliation is seen as excessive by some, whereas I'd rather be humiliated and have it done with than spend 20 years in prison.

 

This is a little mixed up. The US Constitution does not specifically forbid corporal punishment, but it does forbid cruel and unusual punishment. That is specifically covered in the Eighth Amendment which states:

That having been said, corporal punishment has consistently been interpreted as cruel, so no beatings, rapes or toture is allowed. The unusual bit doesn't mean strange but rather means that if the typical sentence for a crime is 1 month in prison, you can't be sentenced to 10 years because the judge happens to not like you.

It is interesting however that you bring up life in prison as cruel and ususual, because in states that do not have the death penalty it is usually because the death penalty is considered unnecessarily cruel, and thus unconstitutional. Life in prison has never been interpreted as cruel because the imprisoned has already shown that he is a danger to society. If he cannot be reformed then he must remain behind bars to protect the rest of society.

Gnarf, you complained that the state did not protect its citizens once by allowing the first murder, surely you cannot advocate allowing him back on the streets. You also mentioned that the state was protecting the criminal more. It is not. They aren't protecting him, but protecting everyone else by keeping him locked up. This is a rather simple issue, I can't see why there should be any confusion here. Unless public lynchings are still an issue in Canada, people are imprisoned for violent crimes to protect the rest of society - not the criminal.

 

Gnarf, that is nonsense. You said, and I quote

Taking that down setence by sentence.

"Then you tell me that my Mormon theological arguments are irrelevent."
Point to the location I said anywhere near resembling that. In fact, as you admit yourself, I did not once refer to that line of argument, simply because I know much at all about your belief, so ther eis no real point in me addressing them.

"You only accept a Theological arguement when it suits your cause." I have not used theological arguments anywhere. I have used examples of what people have said. The reason I chose to use the Pope is because he is slightly more well known than Mr Smith the green grocer.

Now an apologie for the hypocritcal comment and putting words in my mouth would be nice to see, or are you still going to claim I said what I did not?

Will address a few more points when I get back from work, but for now I have to run to a bus.

 

So the killer gets to live because the state is complacent? Stupid idea.

What about ineffective protection? How about a case where a restraining order was issued, ignored, and the murder occurs? Then the Murderer is favoured more than others.

Person B is dead at the hands of Person A. The state preserves the life of Person A where they did nothing to protect Person B. That is favouring the murderer. What more proof do you need? Excuse me for assuming it was that simple...

The Countries that still have the death penalty don't strike me as the kind that care what anyone thinks of them. They are who they are, adn if you don't like it, you're likely going to get told where to go in a rather rude manner. The Countries that have banned capital punishment seem to think themselves better than other nations (whether this is true or not), and would likely believe themselves more civilized. This would cause them to have a lower murder rate. This would also mean that they have more activists opposing the death penalty. Any ban on capital punishment is a byproduct of this attitude.

Yes, I would. It is a moral arguement. Justice demands an equal punishment for the crime committed. For killing someone, then forfeiting their life is the only equal punishment.

How about this theory from Wikipedia (Type in Justice)?

Simple and obvious. The punishment fits the crime as best as can be delivered.

It does give closure. If you know that the person that murdered your loved one is being kept alive on your tax dollars, where is the closure? When he dies, it is over. That death gives a degree of finality to the situation that imprisonment does not.

Incarceration, as it has been repeatedly pointed out, serves two purposes. First, to protect society, and second to punish the victim. In your example, simply raping a rapist and sending them on their way does not protect society. The Rapise is free to rape again, and likely will. In the case of homocide, killing the killer satisfies the protection side of the debate, where your idea doesn't.

Quite the opposite--kill the murderer. Mind you, many people would like a chance to kill the person that killed their loved one...

Execution achieves the same ends.

There was an incident were several inmated of the prison where Paul Bernardo was held wanted to get in to deal with him (likely killing him in a torturous manner). They did not appear detered by the presence of a Guard as they did not expect to get out anyway. I don't know how the situation was defused, but it shows that Bernardo was protected from other inmates.

By quoting the pope, you dragged theology into this as an attempt to make your point definitively. The pope, by nature of his position, while more well known than the hypothetical grocer you compare him to, is a source that cannot be seperated from theology. While yes, it was Decados that came out to say that my beliefs are irrelevent, your refusal to comment on my counter arguement is either a surrender of the point or treating my theological point as irrelevent. If you are surrendering the point, then please accept my apology for missing that possibility. You have caught me off guard there.

It was the two verses I quoted that I was expecting comment on. Surely, you could comment on that.

 

I'll happily concede the point that the quote you provided is what you believe in and what your religion states, and that I am in no place at all to disagree due to my lack of knowledge about your holy texts

I would not argue on a theological grounds, simply as I do not believe in any religion. It would be hypocritical for me to use religion to support my argument. It would not, however, be hypocritical to quote a religous person (or even a religous text) in order to better explain my point. Two different situations. Consider these two statements "It is wrong to eat seafood because it says so in my holy text" as opposed to "It is wrong to eat sea food because it easily goes off - it even says such in this holy text". Not the best examples, I know, but notice the difference?

Anyway, I'm going to leave aside all the other points right now, just to try and focus on one thing - the concept of Justice, or more particularly, punishment. Now, you've stated many times that the punishment should be fitting the crime, where ever possible. You've said that in some cases it is clearly not possible, such as rape or torture, where to punish likewise would be a 'cruel and unusal punishment' (ie. impracticle). Is this correct? If so, I'll give you those points for now. Just for now, I'll even give you the idea that death is a fitting punishment for a murder.

I want to look at a bit more detail about this whole "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm, a life for a life" belief (to quote the Bible; Exodus 21:23–27), or the philosophy of lex talionis (law of retribution). It's got it's advantages in many ways - it does act as a form of protection against the criminal, from undue punishment. If you trade an eye for an eye, it prevents a judge from proscribing execution for a minor crime, where the value isn't equivilent to a human life. However, in the end, I'd argue that the belief is outdated by various checks that are in place in the modern law system.

Anyhow, I want you to look at the following cases, and think what would be the best fitting punishment for such a crime:

• Murder
  
  We've already established that death is the equal and fitting punishment - a life for a life
  
  Rape
  
  You've stated before that you think that raping the criminal is not a good punishment, due to the inpracticalness of it. Maybe this is a case where prisons can be put to good use?
  
  Theft
  
  The value of the crime is the value of the stolen goods, so the theif should have a fine near equal to the value of what was stolen.
  
  Non-leathal stabbing
  
  The criminal should be stabbed (or have pain inflicted upon) in an equal manner
  
  Drinking and driving
  
  ???
  
  Crashing into, and denting, someone's car
  
  Having similar damage carried out on your car
  
  Graffiti
  
  Someone coming and graffitting on your private possessions
  
  Pushing an old lady in a river
  
  The criminal should be pushed in a river
  
  Suicide
  
  ???
  
  Second degree murder*
  
  Capital punishment
  
  Man slaughter
  
  Capital punishment

Can you see where such a belief tends to fail? There must be sound reasoning present to follow the lex talionis principle in one case but not the other. This, however, is where I hit a dead end, and would appreciate been filled in here.




* Just a note at the end, to define second degree murder. I had not idea, so I'm sure some are in the same situation as I was. According (from my quick research) to the Canadian Law system (you're from Canada, correct?), second degree murder occurs when the following do not:

 

It is not uncommon for people convicted of murder to be held in solitary confinement (although I admit I do not know if this is also true in Canada). The other people held in that cell block would also be held in solitary confinement. I find it unlikely that several other inmates who had access to Bernardo were planning on killing him, because for there to be several planning this, it means they weren't held in solitary confinement. Inmates in other sections of the prison who weren't in solitary may have been planning something, but the non-solitary confinement prisoners don't really have access the solitary confinement prisoners. Like I said, I'm much less familiar with the Canadian criminal justice system, so I could be misinformed on some of this.

I will conceed that as a serial rapist Bernardo may very well be receiving protection (as he is still alive) by being kept in solitary confinement - but I would say he is the exception rather than the rule. Most prisoners held in solitary confinement are there because they represent a danger to other, less violent inmates - not because they feel that particular prisoner is at risk from the other inmates.

 

I read a news story about a former Catholic priest who sexually molested several boys. He was placed in protective custody after his conviction. Some of the other prisoners planned and executed a complicated operation wherin the guards watching the priest were distracted, the security systems bypassed, and a big burly fellow got in with the priest and killed him. It took under a minute, and the priest was dead. This story was a long time ago so I apologize for not having more details.

I say that if the state does not have the cojones or the will to kill a prisoner, then they should not allow the other criminals to kill him. While I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for Father Fondle, I am not in favor of what happened to him based on principle.

That being the case, I say most of the criminals should be placed in solitary to protect them from each other.