my feelings are mostly, yes. I believe that if you break the law no matter what it is you should be punished for it. you should get 4 chances. the first is when your born before your first time in. after your firs offence it is rehab and education second is corrective punnishment, ie. community service and such, third time you are no longer fit to be a productive member of society, 4 life. others such as rape and murder should be no contest.
2006-12-01 06:34:23 · 18 answers · asked by ibyt2692 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I think your question is a bit oversimplified. Prison is for punishment, of course. The principle is that in imprisoning people who are a danger to society, we not only protect innocent people from those dangerous individuals, but also give them incentive not to commit the acts again. In extreme cases (life imprisonment,) we are simply removing their ability to ever commit those acts again.
But three times, you go to prison for life? Does that mean that you think violent sex offenders or wife-beaters should be imprisoned in the same manner and according to the same scale as people who write bad checks or get too many parking tickets? Our legal system is very complicated, and for good reason. It takes a great deal of thought and consideration to determine what is the proper punishment for each and every crime, and there is no single formula that can be used fairly to determine such a thing.
2006-12-01 06:43:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are two reasons to punish: practical and moral.
Practical reasons to punish are to make people obey the law out of fear. Basic psychology: if someone is punished for their actions, it discourages them from doing the same thing again. Execution won't reform the prisoner, but it is also practical for two reasons: 1. Guarantees they will never commit a crime again 2. Allegedly serves as a deterrant to others.
Moral reasons are based on the idea that those who have done wrong "deserve" to suffer for a while for it. For example, Hell would obviously not be a correctional facility; and its not a good deterrant either if people can't see it.
Personally, I think there should be a hypnotist at every prison, for everyone whose sentence is up. "Relax, and find your inner self. You are getting sleepy. Now, you will remember to do as I am about to tell you. You will not break the law again...You will not steal...You will not rape...You will not assault...You will not use or sell illegal drugs...You will get a job...you may now wake up, and go into the world." I don't beleive in hypnosis, but hey, it's worth a shot.
I also vehemently oppose anything that punishes good people more than bad ones. For instance, if the prisoner loves their family, being banned from seeing them is a punishment. If they don't love their family, its not a punishment. If they loved their family before, and stop loving them, it will no longer feel like punishment. Not exactly the kind of incentive we want to create.
2006-12-01 15:26:37 · answer #2 · answered by Todd R 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a firm believer in "green bread" prisons. If prisons were made to be more of a punishment than the all inclusive spas they are now then maybe we'd have fewer repeat offenders. For instance, for the duration of the prisoners sentence they should get the same 3 meals every day , Oatmeal made with water and no sweetner of any kind for breakfast (gotta keep the heart healthy), bologna on dry stale bread for lunch (no chips), another bologna sandwich for dinner, and an apple. only water to drink for all three meals. The only reading material allowed should be only religious books. No "fanatical" religions allowed. no t.v., no air-con , no heat. 1 three minute phone call every 6 weeks. All correspondence will be limited to 2 times a month and even then only 1 one page letter in and 2 one page letters out. And all mail will be read by authorities before mailing and before receiving. No excercise equipment allowed , all excercise will consist of running laps and push ups. What? Civil rights? Sorry , you traded those in for a life of crime. Sucks to be you. I mean , it's PRISON for heavens sake, not a spa!!! Yes , it should be punishment!!! 4 chances is 2 chances too many. Hopefully , in a "green bread" prison no one would be back for a second time around and if you are, ok, one more time around won't kill you , but if you come back for 3 , well there's always the death penalty.
2006-12-01 15:05:12 · answer #3 · answered by fireandice 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel it depends on the crime. There are numerous factors that come in to play when you consider what to do with an individual that commented a crime. I am going to go with what I consider personally as one of the worst offenses.
For example. 15 yr Girl (Child) Man that just turned 18 with sex that was consensual vs. a 3 yr Girl and 18 yr old boy. Also, other factors to consider. What if the child is 6 and the offender is 11 or younger? I think you see where I am going with this.
Personally, I don't think someone who is say 40 and molested/sexually abused a child should have a second chance. If someone messed with my 3 yr Girl, (Death) and they can hang me for it, but I would kill the person myself. I also feel this to be true with women who molest little boys or men and boys and women with little girls
2006-12-01 14:50:56 · answer #4 · answered by Shiva07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the prison system should be used for punishment only. Many people believe it should be used as a means of reformation. As much as I like the idea, at what cost? Taxpayers? I don't think so. Let the criminal serve his time then get out and get reformed on his own time and dollar.
2006-12-01 14:37:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i all depends on the crime. if you murder someone then you should get life. if you rape someone then you should get the number of years that best fits the the crime. if you committed a Federal offense then you should just get the death sentence prison is the punishment for committing crimes. if we didn't use prisons for punishment then we would have all these cons running around committing worse crimes than the ones that they committed.
2006-12-01 14:49:15 · answer #6 · answered by "LC" KNOWEN AS AIRFORC 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh how politcally incorrect you are! They are not prisons. They are correctional facilities. Although with a 80% return rate I don't know how much there are correcting.
Let's bring back public floggings. Now that's punishment.
2006-12-01 14:39:45 · answer #7 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on the severity of the crime. If it's assault you should be warned and next time, you may get warned again and you may get in jail for awhile, (not a REALLY long time) but if you do it again you should get the average jail time. If it's importing in secrecy it should be confiscated and you should be warned. If it's selling illegal drugs you should be warned, have it confiscated, and go to jail for like 1 day.
(these are my opinions by the way)
2006-12-01 14:51:19 · answer #8 · answered by ................................ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! I believe the punishment must fit the crime and the victum or victum's family should decide the sentence.
2006-12-01 15:00:29 · answer #9 · answered by William McK 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think being forced to watch soccer for the rest of one's life is the cruelest punishment of all
2006-12-01 14:37:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋