@Omer"Stoop down to his level"... Ordinary citizens are not going to take an axe and behead him. The law will do the necessary. Punishment should be at the same level that the crime is. If the crime is below your nose, I don't find anything wrong if the law bows to give a similar punishment. If the crime is below your waist, still there is nothing wrong if the law kneels for the only sake of punishment. Similarly, if the crime goes beneath your knees, I don't find it demeaning for the law to even lie down if it has to give a punishment at the same level. THAT is justice. If the law "stoops down to his level", there is absolutely nothing belittling--- then only will there be a balance between crime and punishment.
Well now thats a value judgment, every one has his own
. I can understand how sometimes the family of the victims will be mad and enraged; will this be the case one year later? They lost this dear one (whoever he may be), nothing tangible is to be gained by killing the criminal. Some find that the sheer "serving of justice" is good enough, others think its not. For me personally, I believe the
general rule is no, it ain't good enough. But thats not with each and every single case.
"When the sentence is over"? When what sentence is over? If capital punishment is banned, the longest sentence--- the worst punishment--- would be imprisonment lasting for a lifetime. The criminal is going to rot in jail TILL DEATH. So instead of spending resources to keep him alive till he dies, isn't it more cost efficient to give him death once and for all? He MAY repent. But even if he does, of what use will it be to the country? Who will even know whether he's repenting or not? "To prevent him"... Who is even going to prevent him? How is he going to be prevented? Do you think before committing his next crime, he's going to announce it publicly in the newspapers? 
Weeeeeell
Not all murders are "first-class" (not sure aobut the term) murderers. A lot of murders are "self-defensive" or "unintentional". They deserve punishment, but not the maximum, don't you agree
. And about the life-time ones, heres another way to look at it; death is an instant punishment, prison is not; death yields no tangible rewards not for the state nor the victim, prison can yield some sort of reward for the state (a lot of prisoners do some form of work while they're in jail), the victim
"Most probably it won't"? Most probably, it will. I've already explained the 4 elements necessary for a crime to occur: criminal, victim, opportunity, courage. Kindly refer.
yea i did, but I am saying that if you had a reason to kill and you killed, why would you kill again
That becomes very easy then. A criminal kills and then goes on a "psycho-rampage". Instead of going to jail, he's sent to the mental hospital. Good strategy to avoid punishment.
psycho hospitals are not exactly a walk thru the park now are they
"Love, jealousy and revenge"... All of which are mere human whims. I will ask you the same question again: do you think "love", "jealousy", and "revenge" are reasons valid enough to take up somebody's life? If you think they are, then why are humans even bestowed with reasoning power? Everyone experiences these emotions in life, that's natural. So what? Do they keep killing people because of these emotions? Does the law keep ALL the criminals in jail? Is someone else can kill because of "love", "jealousy" and "revenge", then everybody else in this world population of 6 billion should have an equal right!
Well thats what I am saying, sometimes love, jealousy, revenge; there will always be a moment, a "red zone" where a human will not be able to contain his emotions, when his brain is unable to discipline him; and ends up doing thing he normally wouldn't do, things he would regret the next day even if he wasn't punished.
"He's already accomplished his goal"... You mean he is never going to be a victim of "love", "jealousy" and "revenge" again? You really think so? Are we really living in such an ideal world? Once somebody has killed, to do so a second time is easier.
No, but whats the minumum life sentence do you get for killing, be it a "first-class" or a "third-class"? legal age is 18, lets assume you killed and served your sentence as a "third-class" killer; how old will you be by then? How much of your youth would have been wasted? Won't all of this come to the criminal's mind before he thinks about killing again? Yea i know I talked about the "red-zone" but it is possible if you have the right kind of pressure to control it.
Yes, blood money...
Oh but I really don't think the criminal himself is going to pay that huge amount of blood money, especially to the relatives of the one he killed. Else he would be a fool to have murdered. If he does that, then you can refer him to your mental hospital.
So, most probably, the burden will fall on the criminal's family and relatives. Now you tell me, in what way is it fair that all these INNOCENT persons pay for what ONE has done? Don't these persons, who have not wronged, have their own lives, their own expenses, their own financial limitations?
On top of that, we all know it very well: money CANNOT buy life.
lol yea, on some cases the criminal's family can chip on, but thats only
after they are sure he is absolutely and completely broke. Its not gonna bring back the victim, but it provides a tangible aid to the family of the victim. And remember, the criminal's family is not obliged to do so, its up to them at the end of the day.
How effective can money and taking away years of a criminal's life be compared to the life of a dear one which has been robbed?
Right, thank you for elucidating it.
A robber pays back whatever he robs, he returns the SAME amount--- justice.
A company compensates for an employee's accident, SAME amount--- justice.
A criminal has to be killed for killing, SAME again--- justice.
I repeat, no amount of money in the whole world, absolutely NO AMOUNT can ever compensate or account for the loss of lives. This is what our MORAL law teaches, leaving aside the judiciary system.
You said it yourself, SAME amount, the compensation in the top two cases is enough to um, compensate (can't think of another word
) for the loss. The compensation "undoes" the crime, is this the case with the third case? I never said that the money is enough compensation, but I do know that it gives a tangible gain for the family of the victim, killing the criminal does not give any tangible benefit to them
It is also the government's duty to diminish poverty. Has it done it effectively so far? It is also the government's duty to ensure peace and harmony in the world. But I can still see people fighting and dying in masses. Most countries claim to be democracies, should they then rely entirely on the government? Should 'free' nations that do not hesitate to raise a voice be wholly dependent on the government? A government does not make a nation. A nation makes a government.
Agreed on pretty much the entire paragraph
True, a lot of governments are not doing what they are supposed to, but this is not a reason to raise the responsibility off it, actually we should press on them even more
"Worst" standard of living?
How true, poverty is a plague one must have endured personally to be able to have even the slightest notion of its torment.
Even if prison food is of the poorest quality in the world, at least, AT LEAST the prisoners DO HAVE SOMETHING to eat. Can you compare a prisoner with the innocent child who has not even had the chance to see a few grains of rice for days? To the people who have endured famine and slept on an empty stomach for the most part of their lives? To you, to me, to us fortunate ones, prison might be a hell, but for them, it's a rescue. For them, it's heaven on Earth.
Again agreed, and again government is the one to blame.
***You made a mistake while quoting there.***oops, sorry 
Oh, so what I can deduce here is a hidden form of slavery, which has been abolished a long time ago. If the prisoners are not allowed to make any profit, is it a productive investment for the country then? It's better to give these resources to others who are allowed to make a profit. Hence growth for the economy at large is assured.
Yes, I guess you can say it is synonymous with slavery. Sure the world is gonna go crazy "ooh no! slavery! tyrant! kill him!" but hey, slavery was something forced upon people who did not deserve it. My idea is more of a punishment, they practically "asked for it"
If they cannot buy capital, how will they even make business? Should the government every time spend from its budget to get them capital? If the security starts transporting goods, who will do THEIR job?
No, the government shouldnt get them capital either; the primary aim of this idea is to punish more than to raise the a country's GDP. Our great-great-great grandparents didn't have tractors now or harvesters now did they, but they still managed to farm.
Um, get extra security?
"Prisoners should never leave prison". Fine, then the cultivation and harvesting will be done inside prisons. Give dangerous tools like axes, hoes, forks, spades, etc, to a population of threatening criminals, the guards themselves would need security then!
okay you got me there
Alright, I'm not saying that your project is absurd. But we have different categories of criminals in jails. The less dangerous ones can be part of your plan, leave the fatal ones to cemeteries.
Yay me!
Who said they will get out?
look up
Well, I am unsure if there can be "types" of justice. Justice is a state of equality, fair treatment. Between two variables like crime and punishment, there can be ONLY ONE point of equilibrium. If "that is ONE type of justice", that is the ONLY type of justice.
Again, my failure to express my point properly; what i am trying to say is, justice, as "fair" as it is, is not necessarily always the "right" choice. best way I can express it (and i'm sure you're sick of me saying it agin and again) is the "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" thingy
Punishments such as the ones you've mentioned have flaws:
- Hidden slavery, unproductive investment.
This is not the primary target, punishment is.
- If food from jail is cheap, farmers' businesses will be affected.
True, but as i mentioned somewhere earlier, if my plan is to be followed, then the "prisoner yield" is not supposed to be available for the public market. it could be given to chairty, like maybe for the poor or the orphans, or it could also be given to the farmers.
- Money cannot buy lives.
True, but killing the criminal will not get the lost life back either
- The "dear loss of age and finance" either cannot equal to the loss of lives.
Again, it is not equal, but it goes a long way
If you have life, you have everything. If you have everything but don't have life, you don't have anything at all.
Last part i agree, first part, nopes.
