Death Penalty Vs Life imprisonment

[O.T.13.]

where do you think the money comes from omer??

Lock him up...and starve him to death??.....i think it's better to just hang him.

Lol...i like the swimming part...make him swim....till the sharks rip him off completely..w8 say

Alpha has to consider....get the facts right...then the argument begins...pages nd pages..lol

no no no we'll give him a sack of seeds he can plant his own food, he can sell some of it to pay for the bills

lol me never actually researched for any debating whatsoever lol

[Alpha]

Hehehehe Omer and Nid!!!!   :P

I'm busy this week.... Omer, had told you, my Uncle's wedding!!  

I haven't yet read your posts... Not got time...  

Will read, balance the sides, and then, start... with my "pages and pages"...  

Meanwhile, you can carry on...  

P.S. By the way, Omer, that's a good policy.     There is a whole world's difference between having to say something and having something to say.

But sometimes, you gotta pass through the first stage to be able to move on to the next. 

[Alpha]

Some of you ought to be stating clearly about the side they are going for.

I'll be debating for capital punishment.

I believe that if a crime is damn serious and if all accusations are proved, the Death Penalty is an appropriate resort to rid the country of weeds.

@Nid

Life imprisonment is considered more "humane"?
Ripping off somebody's skin out of his body is more humane than hanging him till death??

For a serious offender...say a terrorist,rapist or a murderer, death penalty is what we should go for....how productive can a prisoner be?? We need more security to make sure they don't escape....too much money spent on a criminal...not worth the suffering...not at all

Agreed too, not worth the suffering... Our low income earners suffer too to pay tax and the govt. shouldn't be throwing this tax money into prisons.

@$tyli$h Executive

Lone$tar, you changed nick? Why? Your nick is your ID. Your ID is YOU. Anyway...

Community service can make up for what a criminal does??
Very well then, we'll position all the criminals as ministers. They'll be doing real "community service" then.  

Moreover the punishment is more than capital one actually because the person has to do hardship and bear inconvenience of the punishment for the rest of his life. The country benifits, so do we!

And what about the people who are condemned to endure hardships as a means of survival? What about the old, weak labourer who is working day and night just to be able to feed his family? And the coal miner who endangers his life to be able to live? Aren't these people undergoing life imprisonment in some way? Can you compare them to criminals? Is that equitable?

Excuse me, but I don't find it beneficial to keep life threatening criminals locked up alive in prison cells. Our countries need to be clean. Our citizens need to feel safe. Our planet has to be free of manly dangers, considering all the natural calamities that we are already facing.

@Vakarian

Agreed, others won't dare. To indulge in a crime, one does not only need a victim, a weapon, and an opportunity, but also COURAGE. Victims are humans, the general public. Weapons, we can't stop their supply: nowadays, black markets are more thriving than legal ones. And opportunities, if they do not exist, can always be created. COURAGE is only what the world can shake. Others won't dare... It's the biggest justification.


@Omer

No matter how bad your past is, you can always change
yes, you wont change in an instant, but everyone deserves a chance
if hes too dangerous then exile him far away
on the other hand, its pretty painful for those close to the victims to see the perpetrators walking alive while their beloved ones are gone

Does the one who kills give a chance to his victims? "EVERYONE deserves a chance", the victim too deserved a chance.

Psychopaths are dangerous people, THEY can be exiled. Mentally sick people can be exiled. Criminals are not all mad. If they are to be kept under control, they should be under close observation. How can they be close with a distance of thousands of miles in between?

who said about paying tax money?!
lock him up in a house or something
or even better, make him swim to the island!  

If out of every 100 earthlings, one is a criminal, HOW MANY houses would we need?!
The investment, the cost, the space... Just imagine!

no no no we'll give him a sack of seeds he can plant his own food, he can sell some of it to pay for the bills

And now, you'll give him a farm!  


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We have thousands of people in the world dying out of famine while they don't deserve it at all. Why should we spend money and food on criminals then?

Punishment... Life imprisonment is like continuous death. Why not give instant death and avoid ourselves troubles?

Criminals can always escape. If you drive them far, THEY can come near you. "What goes around comes around." LOL
If you are in a cave with a dangerous lion, and the lion threatens to kill you, you'll try to kill it first, wouldn't you?
If a human is in the place of that lion and has already killed someone, why is the decision then so difficult to take? Would you wait for it to kill YOU first??

I know, a lion and a human are not the same. But a killer and a killer are.

[$tyli$h Executive]

As I stated previously, I am for life imprisonment.

First of all, we must differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens. Any form of punishments meted out to anybody will only deter law abiding citizens from committing a crime. It is not going to deter law breaking citizens, no matter how severe the punishment is. According to my view, law breaking citizens are too callous to be affected. We could give life imprisonment or death penalty to them, but it will only deter the law abiding citizens, not those breaking the law. Is there any punishment severer than death? I don’t know. To the law breaking citizens, punishments like life imprisonment or death are part of the game where the stakes played for are too high. And anyways, law abiding citizens would never intentionally commit a crime which should be punished severely as giving a penalty like death. This would happen even if there was no such penalty like death or life imprisonment. For them, being caught is enough punishment already.

So, from the above arguments, it has been proved that the frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed by authorities. So we should adopt an approach different to deciding whether we should give life imprisonment or death to a severe criminal.

If the frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed, why don’t we adopt a more humane approach of life imprisonment? Sure, we could bend over death penalty and end the problem forever, but such an approach would make a country seem barbaric. Very few criminals can escape successfully from prison. Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe, but in a much more seemingly humane way, as it would be if barbaric death penalties were adopted for every serious criminal.

The USA does NOT spend 25% of money on prisons. This information is incorrect. In 2008, the prison expenditure was 28.4 billion USD. HUGE isn’t it? NO! The GDP of US in 2008 is 14400000000000 USD. This expenditure represents only 0.20285% of its GDP. The difference between 25% and 0.20285% is too great. I don’t think it’s such a huge expenditure. Expenditure figures for other economies are likely to be similar.

I like dynamism. So I changed my ID. After I grow used to this ID, I will change again! Heck! I am thinking of changing my avatar too!

NB No offence to anybody implied. Debate is all about 'polite quarrel'.

[O.T.13.]

Does the one who kills give a chance to his victims? "EVERYONE deserves a chance", the victim too deserved a chance.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Yea, sure, some (and not all) of the victims didn't "deserve" to die (and that is a value judgment), but does killing the murderer (who again, may or may not have intended, it coulda have been a "rage attack" even though hes not necessarily a psychopath) resurrect or in any way compensate for his crime? Yea sure what he did is wrong, whether he meant it or not; what does killing him do in favour of the victim?

Psychopaths are dangerous people, THEY can be exiled. Mentally sick people can be exiled. Criminals are not all mad. If they are to be kept under control, they should be under close observation. How can they be close with a distance of thousands of miles in between?

Agreed (basically i can't think of a rationale arguemnt, maybe you can debate against yourself? )

If out of every 100 earthlings, one is a criminal, HOW MANY houses would we need?!
The investment, the cost, the space... Just imagine!

Well when i said house arrest i didn't exactly mean a house   no, i mean to provide him with somewhere to live with the lowest possible standard of living (that still allows him to survive)

And now, you'll give him a farm!

Thats one way to look at it; another way is we're forcing him to make his own food, and whatever he sells will be what pays his bills, basically he ain't getting money we'll be just forcing him to earn his residence (the bills and whatever hes living in, be it a hut or a block of flats) and the excess will be given to the public in someway or another, in other words; he aint gettin no profit

Criminals can always escape. If you drive them far, THEY can come near you

Build a 10 meters flat (as in no 3D texture or anything similar), make it only one entrance, everything out of concrete, and TA-DAA!

NB No offence to anybody implied. Debate is all about 'polite quarrel'.

Yups, we should all keep that in mind; one of the nice things about the recent debates is all of em have been in a friendly full of   and   manner lol
lol i thought yourea new member until i saw your avatar


oh and one more thing i just remember; more prisoners = more security needed= less unemployment

[Alpha]

@Stylish Executive

First of all, we must differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens.

You know what? As I read your first line itself, I got surprised. WHY should you even differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens??
Citizens are, first and foremost, CITIZENS. If they all have the same rights, they ALL have the SAME RESPONSIBILITIES as well! Whether or not they adhere to law is something that comes after, much after!

Any form of punishments meted out to anybody will only deter law abiding citizens from committing a crime. It is not going to deter law breaking citizens, no matter how severe the punishment is. According to my view, law breaking citizens are too callous to be affected. We could give life imprisonment or death penalty to them, but it will only deter the law abiding citizens, not those breaking the law.

"Law breaking citizens" are NOT occurrences of Nature. To break the law is NOT natural. To kill somebody is NOT natural. If a citizen does not break the law, means he is abiding to it. Before being law breaking citizens, these 'criminals' (we're talking about serious crimes, not petty offenses) WERE law abiding citizens! And based on what YOU said, I can conclude that the death penalty is going to deter law abiding citizens from becoming law breaking citizens--- it is going to deter the formation of law breaking citizens (OUT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS).

Is there any punishment severer than death? I don’t know. To the law breaking citizens, punishments like life imprisonment or death are part of the game where the stakes played for are too high.

"Are part of the game" which the LAW is going to end. If I know the game would anyway be ended by the law (by my own death), why then in the first place itself should I be playing this game? I know if I kill for a first time, I will be killed by the law, I won't be in a position able to kill again. I know if I am going to play a big game, I will not be there later to reap the results of my "stakes", WHY then should I stake MY LIFE???

And anyways, law abiding citizens would never intentionally commit a crime which should be punished severely as giving a penalty like death.

EXACTLY! "Law breaking citizens" emerge from "law abiding citizens".

This would happen even if there was no such penalty like death or life imprisonment. For them, being caught is enough punishment already.

If we are still living in a world where shame is greater than temptation, I would be on the seventh cloud! That would be so idealistic! BUT unfortunately, the IDeal has no ID. It is rated R- Restricted. R pushes ID out of the world we are living in. What is IDeal is not Real. 

So, from the above arguments, it has been proved that the frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed by authorities. So we should adopt an approach different to deciding whether we should give life imprisonment or death to a severe criminal.

Life does not happen at the level of words. What you have put in words here is absolutely different from what happens in reality. "The frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed by authorities"?? WHO said that? (So as not to ask: WHO the fool said that? LOL)
If YOU steal a first time and your Dad (hypothetically) cuts one of your hands, would you steal again? Fine, let's say you're a total rebel. You steal a second time and your Dad cuts your second hand. Would you BE ABLE to steal again??
That is where the death penalty plays its biggest role: cutting both your hands does not allow you to steal! You will HAVE NO HANDS TO BE ABLE TO STEAL AGAIN! Temptation then--- be it as strong as it could be--- without capability, is handicapped.

If the frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed, why don’t we adopt a more humane approach of life imprisonment? Sure, we could bend over death penalty and end the problem forever, but such an approach would make a country seem barbaric. Very few criminals can escape successfully from prison. Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe, but in a much more seemingly humane way, as it would be if barbaric death penalties were adopted for every serious criminal.

BARBARIC??? To you, death penalty, which is a punishment for killing, is more "barbaric" than killing is??? Isn't crime barbaric?? Isn't killing someone for no logical reason barbaric???

LOL, seems like it's become a new trend: people nowadays commit crimes in order to REMAIN in prison, most of them in order to get out of the poverty trap--- and that totally redefines "prisons" and their purpose!
Agree, poverty can sometimes be unbearable. But that doesn't mean we should bear crime!
In five simple words, prisons are not gratis hotels.

"Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe".
Let me put this clear. Somebody who kills deprives people of their FIRST, BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL right which is above ALL other rights: their right to life. A world infested with such people does NOT make our citizens' lives "safe". Walking in the streets with the constant worry of being attacked is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Going out with little hope of returning back in one whole piece (LOL ) is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Maybe for you, "safe" has another meaning. 

The USA does NOT spend 25% of money on prisons. This information is incorrect. In 2008, the prison expenditure was 28.4 billion USD. HUGE isn’t it? NO! The GDP of US in 2008 is 14400000000000 USD. This expenditure represents only 0.20285% of its GDP. The difference between 25% and 0.20285% is too great. I don’t think it’s such a huge expenditure. Expenditure figures for other economies are likely to be similar.

Hey hello! $ 28.4 billion on WHAT exactly??? Food for the prisoners? Clothes for them? All their basic facilities? And what about the money that goes into building those prisons, on land, their opportunity costs?? The money that goes into the police force? Into the court? Into security measures? In compensations, if ever there are? In transferring prisoners?
Well, I don't work in the army, but I do have that little knowledge to be able to tell you that expenditure on prisons is not confined to inside the cells only!

P.S. Kindly let me know when you're gonna change your name, parents and gender! 

NB No offence to anybody implied. Debate is all about 'polite quarrel'.

Seriously, don't you get tired typing this every time? 
I got tired reading it again and again. 
Come on, we people here are not that close minded. Just read the debate rules and put a final full stop there! 

[$tyli$h Executive]

@Stylish Executive


You know what? As I read your first line itself, I got surprised. WHY should you even differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens??
Citizens are, first and foremost, CITIZENS. If they all have the same rights, they ALL have the SAME RESPONSIBILITIES as well! Whether or not they adhere to law is something that comes after, much after!

"Law breaking citizens" are NOT occurrences of Nature. To break the law is NOT natural. To kill somebody is NOT natural. If a citizen does not break the law, means he is abiding to it. Before being law breaking citizens, these 'criminals' (we're talking about serious crimes, not petty offenses) WERE law abiding citizens! And based on what YOU said, I can conclude that the death penalty is going to deter law abiding citizens from becoming law breaking citizens--- it is going to deter the formation of law breaking citizens (OUT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS).

"Are part of the game" which the LAW is going to end. If I know the game would anyway be ended by the law (by my own death), why then in the first place itself should I be playing this game? I know if I kill for a first time, I will be killed by the law, I won't be in a position able to kill again. I know if I am going to play a big game, I will not be there later to reap the results of my "stakes", WHY then should I stake MY LIFE???

EXACTLY! "Law breaking citizens" emerge from "law abiding citizens".

If we are still living in a world where shame is greater than temptation, I would be on the seventh cloud! That would be so idealistic! BUT unfortunately, the IDeal has no ID. It is rated R- Restricted. R pushes ID out of the world we are living in. What is IDeal is not Real.  

Life does not happen at the level of words. What you have put in words here is absolutely different from what happens in reality. "The frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed by authorities"?? WHO said that? (So as not to ask: WHO the fool said that? LOL)
If YOU steal a first time and your Dad (hypothetically) cuts one of your hands, would you steal again? Fine, let's say you're a total rebel. You steal a second time and your Dad cuts your second hand. Would you BE ABLE to steal again??
That is where the death penalty plays its biggest role: cutting both your hands does not allow you to steal! You will HAVE NO HANDS TO BE ABLE TO STEAL AGAIN! Temptation then--- be it as strong as it could be--- without capability, is handicapped.

BARBARIC??? To you, death penalty, which is a punishment for killing, is more "barbaric" than killing is??? Isn't crime barbaric?? Isn't killing someone for no logical reason barbaric???

LOL, seems like it's become a new trend: people nowadays commit crimes in order to REMAIN in prison, most of them in order to get out of the poverty trap--- and that totally redefines "prisons" and their purpose!
Agree, poverty can sometimes be unbearable. But that doesn't mean we should bear crime!
In five simple words, prisons are not gratis hotels.

"Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe".
Let me put this clear. Somebody who kills deprives people of their FIRST, BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL right which is above ALL other rights: their right to life. A world infested with such people does NOT make our citizens' lives "safe". Walking in the streets with the constant worry of being attacked is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Going out with little hope of returning back in one whole piece (LOL ) is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Maybe for you, "safe" has another meaning.  


Hey hello! $ 28.4 billion on WHAT exactly??? Food for the prisoners? Clothes for them? All their basic facilities? And what about the money that goes into building those prisons, on land, their opportunity costs?? The money that goes into the police force? Into the court? Into security measures? In compensations, if ever there are? In transferring prisoners?
Well, I don't work in the army, but I do have that little knowledge to be able to tell you that expenditure on prisons is not confined to inside the cells only!

P.S. Kindly let me know when you're gonna change your name, parents and gender!  

Seriously, don't you get tired typing this every time?  
I got tired reading it again and again.  
Come on, we people here are not that close minded. Just read the debate rules and put a final full stop there!  

Alpha, Dear!, reading your post (especially the last few lines!!!) has led me into thinking if you are really angry with me!

If you have any grunts or any other issues, or if I have hurt you in any way, please let me know, or at least PM me! We are going to sort this out!!!

Really, I Promise!!!

[Alpha]

@Omer

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Yea, sure, some (and not all) of the victims didn't "deserve" to die (and that is a value judgment), but does killing the murderer (who again, may or may not have intended, it coulda have been a "rage attack" even though hes not necessarily a psychopath) resurrect or in any way compensate for his crime? Yea sure what he did is wrong, whether he meant it or not; what does killing him do in favour of the victim?

We have courts and judges inside them sitting on chairs with a gavel and their most famous dialogue "Order! Order!", listening to both sides of the arguments (to the prosecutors and the accused), eye/ear witnesses, bystanders, and make appropriate decisions based on evidences and proofs. (LOL, I can't help laughing. XD)
Crimes can be biased, people can be biased, but the court is not biased. The law is not partial.
Defence attacks are given special treatment. "Rage attacks"?? Is "rage" a reason valid enough to justify killing? Rage is TEMPORARY. Is it a reason enough to end someone's life PERMANENTLY??

"What does killing him do in favour of the victim?"
An eye for an eye, like you said. Death for death.
Killing a criminal will prevent others from becoming victims. It will prevent other crimes from occurring. It will prevent other people from being robbed of their lives. It will prevent other families from losing their members, who might have been the backbone.

Prevention is better than cure. It's better to prevent other disasters from happening than to try to set things right after they have occurred.

And where has the word that dominates the court and the law gone??
JUSTICE. Killing his criminal does justice to the victim. It does justice to his family. It does justice to a whole nation.
To do justice is the main reason for which the law exists. If the law stops doing justice, people will lose faith in it.

Agreed (basically i can't think of a rationale arguemnt, maybe you can debate against yourself?   )

Wait, I'll get a mirror!  

Well when i said house arrest i didn't exactly mean a house   no, i mean to provide him with somewhere to live with the lowest possible standard of living (that still allows him to survive)

I've already discussed about prisons being transformed into hotels in my previous post.

Thats one way to look at it; another way is we're forcing him to make his own food, and whatever he sells will be what pays his bills, basically he ain't getting money we'll be just forcing him to earn his residence (the bills and whatever hes living in, be it a hut or a block of flats) and the excess will be given to the public in someway or another, in other words; he aint gettin no profit

And the third way to look at it:
Suppose what you say is practised, do you find any difference between a criminal and any ordinary citizen?? Any ordinary farmer?
The farmer makes his own food, pays his bills, etc. Besides, to do business, a criminal MUST have access to the outside world. Where has "security" gone now? Where is "punishment"? Where is "crime"? And see, where the "criminal" has reached!

Build a 10 meters flat (as in no 3D texture or anything similar), make it only one entrance, everything out of concrete, and TA-DAA!

Better, make a bungalow for them--- with NO entrance at all, no underground tunnels, NOTHING!
The public wants to feel 100% safe!


The death penalty is the only guaranteed punishment that is going to make a criminal's first crime be his LAST one. We cannot eradicate crime. But if by eradicating criminals we can diminish crimes, that is justice to the world!

If capital punishment can help make this world a better place to live in, WHY NOT?

[Alpha]

Alpha, Dear!, reading your post (especially the last few lines!!!) has led me into thinking if you are really angry with me!

If you have any grunts or any other issues, or if I have hurt you in any way, please let me know, or at least PM me! We are going to sort this out!!!

Really, I Promise!!!

NOOOO NOOOO NOT AT ALL!!!

Oh come on!! Is it written "idiot" on my face? XD

That was only for the sake of making a good debate, THAT'S ALL.

WHY should I be angry?   You mistook me...

I am one of those people who do not carry grunts in life's luggage... That would be too heavy for me...

Come on... We are not enemies here!!!

Anyway, if you feel I have been too 'rude', I apologize sincerely... I'm sorry if I hurt you in any way...

I never meant it to be like this...

Peace.  

[$tyli$h Executive]

I haven't been offended at all dear! Matter Settled!!!

[Alpha]

I haven't been offended at all dear! Matter Settled!!!

Thank You.... 

I got worried...

[vakarian]

well ...looks like the ppl who are saying they should be jailed have never been victims of a crime like stealing or some one they love getting killed and so on ..once it happens to you ,you'll know why they deserve death .

lemme ask you one thing ,if some one you really love is killed ,what you chose for the killer ? .

1.slow death .
2.sitting in a jail having food ,shelter ,new friends ,lazy days ,books ,tv ,gym and all those without having a job ,family and all those headaches .

edit : woooot ...this was my hundredth post .

[O.T.13.]

@Omer

We have courts and judges inside them sitting on chairs with a gavel and their most famous dialogue "Order! Order!", listening to both sides of the arguments (to the prosecutors and the accused), eye/ear witnesses, bystanders, and make appropriate decisions based on evidences and proofs. (LOL, I can't help laughing. XD)
Crimes can be biased, people can be biased, but the court is not biased. The law is not partial.
Defence attacks are given special treatment. "Rage attacks"?? Is "rage" a reason valid enough to justify killing? Rage is TEMPORARY. Is it a reason enough to end someone's life PERMANENTLY??

the efficiency of the death sentence is not something I doubt; its the fact that the criminal will not get the chance to repent; Yea fine hesa bad bad man for killing someone, but why do we have to stoop down to his level? lengthy prison sentences will surely take deteriorate his soul; prison is not a "short ride" you go there, taste some of the worst food thats only enough to help you survive but not necessarily with adequate nutrition, whats going to be the result when the sentence is over? One, he could have learned his lesson and repented, or two, he could be back to his ways, but remember, its not like hes gonna go ahead and kill the first person he sees; most murders are premeditated , I am sure there is more than enough means to prevent him

"What does killing him do in favour of the victim?"
An eye for an eye, like you said. Death for death.
Killing a criminal will prevent others from becoming victims. It will prevent other crimes from occurring. It will prevent other people from being robbed of their lives. It will prevent other families from losing their members, who might have been the backbone.

An eye for an eye.... makes the whole world blind; it MYTE prevent other crimes from occurring, but most probably it won't. Murderers have causes to kill, once they killed that victim and accomplished their goal, there will not be much reason to go on a "pyscho-rampage" (and if he does, then hes a mental case, i.e. he should be referred to a mental hospital

Prevention is better than cure. It's better to prevent other disasters from happening than to try to set things right after they have occurred.

Again, the percentage of psychopaths and serial killers do not account for the majority of murderers, most murders occurr as a result of love/jealous or revenge; and in both cases I do not see how killing him will reduce the number of future killings, he's already accomplished his goal, he's just gonna try to move on with his life after he's out. Life sentences will rob a lot of his age and probably his fortune too, he will not be able to resume his life, at least now he has a chance to repent and do well.
Also, as you're a Muslim you probably know that already; a lot of countries (mainly Muslim) offers the chance for the murderer or the murderer's family to pay blood money to the victim; believe me, these sums are NOT little; if such a system can be applied then this way at least the family of the victim can have a more tangible compensation than just the "pleasure" of seeing the criminal killed

And where has the word that dominates the court and the law gone??
JUSTICE. Killing his criminal does justice to the victim. It does justice to his family. It does justice to a whole nation.
To do justice is the main reason for which the law exists. If the law stops doing justice, people will lose faith in it.

Yes true, justice, the golden word of law. But how affective would killing the murderer give to the Family? A robber has to pay back whatever he robs to the victim, thats justice served; a company is ordered to compensate an employee for an accident because of a problem with the company's working area or whatnot, thats justice served. In both cases the victim gained something; what does the family of a killed victim get? Blood money is not gonna resurrect him, but at least the family is able to get some sort of a compensation, a compensation that costs the criminal very dearly financially and age-wise (since hes gonna be lsing a few dozen years in jail).

I've already discussed about prisons being transformed into hotels in my previous post.

yea i see what you mean, but look at it this way; isnt it the government's duty in the first place to make sure nobody has the need to do so? a jail is supposed to be the one place with the worst standard of living in the entire country! its not supposed to be a hotel, its supposed to be a place where you are forced to learn discipline and possibly have a chance to meditate and repent

And the third way to look at it:
Suppose what you say is practised, do you find any difference between a criminal and any ordinary citizen?? Any ordinary farmer?
The farmer makes his own food, pays his bills, etc. Besides, to do business, a criminal MUST have access to the outside world. Where has "security" gone now? Where is "punishment"? Where is "crime"? And see, where the "criminal" has reached!

As i said before, my idea also includes that the prisoners are not ALLOWED to make any profit, farmers can; farmers can have the aid of capital, prisoners won't since they do not have profits and hence can't afford to buy any capital. And no, they do not have to access the outside world, the security can transport the goods for them; prisoners should never leave prison, its a part of the punishment

Better, make a bungalow for them--- with NO entrance at all, no underground tunnels, NOTHING!
The public wants to feel 100% safe!

yea but how will they get out after serving their sentence out

The death penalty is the only guaranteed punishment that is going to make a criminal's first crime be his LAST one. We cannot eradicate crime. But if by eradicating criminals we can diminish crimes, that is justice to the world!

That is ONE type of justice. But as I already said, its too blind, its not totally wrong, but it is not the best choice. Justice myte be served, but thats as far as it goes. Punishments such as the one i mentioned can actually help the country and raise cheaper food (since no profits will be made) for those who need it; and combined with paying blood money, this gives benefit to both the state as well as the family of the victim, not to mention the dear loss of age and finance of the murderer

[$tyli$h Executive]

-------------------------------

I agree with OT13 that a serious criminal could be sent to exile, perhaps a distant island, allocated for such offenders.

-------------------------------

@Stylish Executive


You know what? As I read your first line itself, I got surprised. WHY should you even differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens??
Citizens are, first and foremost, CITIZENS. If they all have the same rights, they ALL have the SAME RESPONSIBILITIES as well! Whether or not they adhere to law is something that comes after, much after!

Don't you think you are diverting from the topic a bit? I did not develop my point in one sentence. So you should not argue based upon your conclusion after reading the first sentence. So, I would advise you to read the whole paragraph, carefully, think and then argue for your conclusions based on the WHOLE paragraph.

-------------------------------

@Stylish Executive
"Are part of the game" which the LAW is going to end. If I know the game would anyway be ended by the law (by my own death), why then in the first place itself should I be playing this game? I know if I kill for a first time, I will be killed by the law, I won't be in a position able to kill again. I know if I am going to play a big game, I will not be there later to reap the results of my "stakes", WHY then should I stake MY LIFE???

There are many reasons for which a criminal commits a crime. It is not necessarily limited to need, or any other simple thing. The point which you illustrated is your thinking. You must understand that not everybody thinks in a similar way. I would suggest you to consult a mental physician if you want to know more about why people commit crimes.

-------------------------------

@Stylish Executive

LOL, seems like it's become a new trend: people nowadays commit crimes in order to REMAIN in prison, most of them in order to get out of the poverty trap--- and that totally redefines "prisons" and their purpose!
Agree, poverty can sometimes be unbearable. But that doesn't mean we should bear crime!
In five simple words, prisons are not gratis hotels.

Why do criminals try to escape from the police, then? There are many poor peoples in the world. Not everybody of them are criminals. Only a minority of them are. That is why I differentiated from LAW ABIDING AND LAW BREAKING CITIZENS!!!. Every poor people has needs, but only SOME OF THEM ARE COMMITING CRIMES!!! I think you should have understood this. Again, you must read my WHOLE paragraph and understand what I am trying to say, then argue.

A man or woman who commits crimes to 'remain in prison' is mentally handicapped. And all of the participants of this debate (maybe except you!) will agree with me.

-------------------------------

@Stylish Executive


"Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe".
Let me put this clear. Somebody who kills deprives people of their FIRST, BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL right which is above ALL other rights: their right to life. A world infested with such people does NOT make our citizens' lives "safe". Walking in the streets with the constant worry of being attacked is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Going out with little hope of returning back in one whole piece (LOL ) is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Maybe for you, "safe" has another meaning.  

YOU are opposing YOURSELF!!! You said that Everybody are citizens of a country. Aren't criminals citizens too?

According to my theory, the serious offenders (like murderer, rapists or drug traffickers) will be KEPT BEHIND BARS! The cells will be supervised by honest police officers. The criminals won't get any chance to escape from the cells, regardless of how much they try. This will make our citizen's life safe for sure.

I think you have a misconception/misunderstanding about the definition of life imprisonment. I would suggest you to look it up in wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment . In a debate, you should always know what exactly is your topic after all.

-------------------------------

@Stylish Executive
Hey hello! $ 28.4 billion on WHAT exactly??? Food for the prisoners? Clothes for them? All their basic facilities? And what about the money that goes into building those prisons, on land, their opportunity costs?? The money that goes into the police force? Into the court? Into security measures? In compensations, if ever there are? In transferring prisoners?
Well, I don't work in the army, but I do have that little knowledge to be able to tell you that expenditure on prisons is not confined to inside the cells only!

After reading this, I actually thought you are joking . But you seem to be serious.

Well I have one advice for you: KISS not   , but KEEP IT SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD! Also THINK this way!

To make it clear, 28.4 billion USD was the expenditure figure for 2008 on prisons. It was the TOTAL expenditure (variable cost, not fixed costs or external costs) for running the prison. Prisons are not rebuilt every year. It has already been built, perhaps long before you and I were born.

If you are confused about what are the variable costs of running a prison, it includes repair, foods, employing security measures and staffs and etc. You may wish to look it up in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_cost

-------------------------------

@Stylish Executive

P.S. Kindly let me know when you're gonna change your name, parents and gender!  

Seriously, don't you get tired typing this every time?  
I got tired reading it again and again.  
Come on, we people here are not that close minded. Just read the debate rules and put a final full stop there!  

You must understand that not everybody thinks like you (and me!)! As I said before, I am the co-admin of another forum run by my uncle. My experience is that if you oppose to somebody else, he/she occasionally gets offended even if you are polite. So, I write this. I am sorry if you get tired reading this again and again. I will write it again and again. That's my writing style when I oppose somebody. But considering your request, I am changing it.

NB. "if you are barely civilized, let yourself loose!"


-------------------------------

[O.T.13.]

Damn you people write so much you make me feel so pointless to remain in the debate 

Anyways, I combined $tyliSh Exectuive's Posts and combined them into one (Seven back-to-back posts was a LOT)