I get what you're saying, and do agree with some of it, but I don't agree with the conclusion. It's not either or between "legalized brigandry" and death penalty.
Also, are you saying you want to kill convicted armed robbers, and that would be fine, but it wouldn't be fine to lock them up for life, or long stretches until they're older? You can absolutely believe in law and order, without believing in the death penalty. I do want harsher penalties for plenty of crimes, including your example of armed robbery. But I don't think it should reach the death penalty. We could, just off the top of my head, lock armed robbers up for 10-20 years, with an additional five years of closely monitored probation or something. If they offend again, lock them up for life.
If we're going to have a death penalty, I think it should be reserved for specific professions or sectors; basically politicians, perhaps military or police. People who have disproportionate control over the lives of others. Treason having the death penalty just feels right. But even that is open to abuse, considering it would to some extent be politicians policing themselves. It would either never be applied, as they wouldn't want to set the precedent of killing each other, or could be abused to take out political opponents.
But, basically, I think in almost or all situations, longer jail times could serve as well or better than the death penalty. We just need to stop letting out the tiny percent of the population who repeatedly commit violent crime, or even repeatedly commit smaller crimes. Liberals freaked out about a "three strike" law, but it's along the right lines. Heck, with how bastardized our current system is, a fucking ten or twenty strike law would already drastically clean up society. Maybe a two or three strike rule if even one is violent, and like a five or six strike rule for higher level but nonviolent crimes, and the latter wouldn't even by life, just a significantly increased sentence.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment. I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical. We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight. We would need prisons the size of small cities.
If they offend again, lock them up for life.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
I don't even agree. I agree that they're likely to kill eventually, and I certainly agree they should be taken off the streets before they can do that, but plenty of these fuckers commit armed robberies many times without/before killing anyone. Also, hopefully with their probation they get busted for something more minor/stupid before jumping right back into armed robbery.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment.
I don't see how, if you think death penalty is "practical," long prisons sentences wouldn't be considered such. It seems a perfectly fine alternative to me, and much less ripe for abuse.
I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical.
Violent criminals are a small percentage of the overall population, the issue is they keep being let out to reoffend, as well as spread their degenerate mindsets to their communities. Lock the worst offenders up for long periods, society will improve. If we ever get a sensible justice system, and things don't improve, then maybe we can talk about taking things further.
Also, you seem to acknowledge there are a lot of these fuckers. Is killing huge numbers of criminals really more practical than jailing them? Even just optically, that seems pretty monstrous. To scale, and optically, locking this number of people up seems much better than killing them. If we're going to kill people in large numbers, innocent people will be caught up in that, guaranteed.
We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight.
Not to the degree we are now, but we certainly need to stop letting these fucks out.
We would need prisons the size of small cities.
Sounds based, let's go. We could just go full Escape from New York/LA and turn parts of CA and NY into prison colonies.
This has reminded me to read up on the history of incarceration. Interestingly, I think you and I are having a very old conversation. The very idea of holding people for any amount of time for their crimes is fairly modern. Usually, punishment was meted out based on some sort of capital-corporal dichotomy. Steal someone's purse? You go to the scaffold. Beat your wife? You go to the stocks for a day or two. I know that Kings and Lords may have held a few in literal dungeons, but this was not a society wide system.
Then in the 18th century, progressives (or social reformers as we used to call them) decided that incarceration could cover some of the lesser capital crimes and some of the greater non-capital crimes. It should be noted that from the very beginning the idea behind incarceration was rehabilitation, not separating dangerous people from society. Long and life sentences came about as a sort of stopgap measure.
I should stop here because, like I said, I need to do more reading on this subject to say anything intelligent.
Alright, this is a really good point. And I'm certainly more likely to be convinced in regards to corporal punishment that capital punishment, although many of the same problems remain. The people who would be scared by corporal punishment are, by and large at least, the people who don't need it; they'll behave relatively well regardless. The people who deserve corporal punishment won't be dissuaded by it.
The core problem is the criminal mindset. These people are basically retarded, and incapable of integrating into a sane society. So you have to take them out, one way or another. I personally prefer incarceration, as I think state-enforced death is too violative of rights and freedoms, and too permanent if it hits innocents.
It's very interesting to think about, though, that I may be trapped in the current framing, and trying to make an, as you say, "stopgap measure" work in ways it might not really work. I still think it may be the most feasible and humane solution, although it is certainly worth looking into more.
It's certainly a tricky question, as these sorts of people are so fucked in their thinking it's hard to figure out what to do with them. But continually letting them into society to reoffend certainly isn't the answer. Again, the issue is it's basically impossible to rehabilitate a large swath of the violent criminals. So what do you do with them?
I get what you're saying, and do agree with some of it, but I don't agree with the conclusion. It's not either or between "legalized brigandry" and death penalty.
Also, are you saying you want to kill convicted armed robbers, and that would be fine, but it wouldn't be fine to lock them up for life, or long stretches until they're older? You can absolutely believe in law and order, without believing in the death penalty. I do want harsher penalties for plenty of crimes, including your example of armed robbery. But I don't think it should reach the death penalty. We could, just off the top of my head, lock armed robbers up for 10-20 years, with an additional five years of closely monitored probation or something. If they offend again, lock them up for life.
If we're going to have a death penalty, I think it should be reserved for specific professions or sectors; basically politicians, perhaps military or police. People who have disproportionate control over the lives of others. Treason having the death penalty just feels right. But even that is open to abuse, considering it would to some extent be politicians policing themselves. It would either never be applied, as they wouldn't want to set the precedent of killing each other, or could be abused to take out political opponents.
But, basically, I think in almost or all situations, longer jail times could serve as well or better than the death penalty. We just need to stop letting out the tiny percent of the population who repeatedly commit violent crime, or even repeatedly commit smaller crimes. Liberals freaked out about a "three strike" law, but it's along the right lines. Heck, with how bastardized our current system is, a fucking ten or twenty strike law would already drastically clean up society. Maybe a two or three strike rule if even one is violent, and like a five or six strike rule for higher level but nonviolent crimes, and the latter wouldn't even by life, just a significantly increased sentence.
First, yes I think armed robbery, by way of example, merits capital punishment. I guess that the sticking point is the practicality of widespread use of life (or very long) sentences as an alternative to capital punishment. I simply don't believe that handing out a life sentence to every violent criminal is practical. We were paroling violent criminals long before dindu justice became the norm because the system would crack under the weight. We would need prisons the size of small cities.
Remember that in the case of the proverbial stick-up man, the new offence probably cost an innocent person their life.
I don't even agree. I agree that they're likely to kill eventually, and I certainly agree they should be taken off the streets before they can do that, but plenty of these fuckers commit armed robberies many times without/before killing anyone. Also, hopefully with their probation they get busted for something more minor/stupid before jumping right back into armed robbery.
I don't see how, if you think death penalty is "practical," long prisons sentences wouldn't be considered such. It seems a perfectly fine alternative to me, and much less ripe for abuse.
Violent criminals are a small percentage of the overall population, the issue is they keep being let out to reoffend, as well as spread their degenerate mindsets to their communities. Lock the worst offenders up for long periods, society will improve. If we ever get a sensible justice system, and things don't improve, then maybe we can talk about taking things further.
Also, you seem to acknowledge there are a lot of these fuckers. Is killing huge numbers of criminals really more practical than jailing them? Even just optically, that seems pretty monstrous. To scale, and optically, locking this number of people up seems much better than killing them. If we're going to kill people in large numbers, innocent people will be caught up in that, guaranteed.
Not to the degree we are now, but we certainly need to stop letting these fucks out.
Sounds based, let's go. We could just go full Escape from New York/LA and turn parts of CA and NY into prison colonies.
This has reminded me to read up on the history of incarceration. Interestingly, I think you and I are having a very old conversation. The very idea of holding people for any amount of time for their crimes is fairly modern. Usually, punishment was meted out based on some sort of capital-corporal dichotomy. Steal someone's purse? You go to the scaffold. Beat your wife? You go to the stocks for a day or two. I know that Kings and Lords may have held a few in literal dungeons, but this was not a society wide system.
Then in the 18th century, progressives (or social reformers as we used to call them) decided that incarceration could cover some of the lesser capital crimes and some of the greater non-capital crimes. It should be noted that from the very beginning the idea behind incarceration was rehabilitation, not separating dangerous people from society. Long and life sentences came about as a sort of stopgap measure.
I should stop here because, like I said, I need to do more reading on this subject to say anything intelligent.
Alright, this is a really good point. And I'm certainly more likely to be convinced in regards to corporal punishment that capital punishment, although many of the same problems remain. The people who would be scared by corporal punishment are, by and large at least, the people who don't need it; they'll behave relatively well regardless. The people who deserve corporal punishment won't be dissuaded by it.
The core problem is the criminal mindset. These people are basically retarded, and incapable of integrating into a sane society. So you have to take them out, one way or another. I personally prefer incarceration, as I think state-enforced death is too violative of rights and freedoms, and too permanent if it hits innocents.
It's very interesting to think about, though, that I may be trapped in the current framing, and trying to make an, as you say, "stopgap measure" work in ways it might not really work. I still think it may be the most feasible and humane solution, although it is certainly worth looking into more.
It's certainly a tricky question, as these sorts of people are so fucked in their thinking it's hard to figure out what to do with them. But continually letting them into society to reoffend certainly isn't the answer. Again, the issue is it's basically impossible to rehabilitate a large swath of the violent criminals. So what do you do with them?
And one day, the President's plane might go down over one of them.