Should all murderers and sex offenders be a federal offense?

Question

I mean, I think that they should all be federal cases where if given the death penalty it should be carried out in a year MAX. I also think that sex offenders should go to Federal prison and given implants of tracking devices where the government manages the movement of those offenders. Finally, I think a 3rd offense means life in prison without the possiblity of parole. These jails should be horribly bad and amnesty should be out the window. Drug dealers (not marijuana) should be sent here as well unless it is proven that the drugs being sold were created in the same state as the sale was in. What do you think?

Answer 1

This is the third bogus question in a row you have asked. I sentence you to life with no possibility of ever coming near a computer again.

Answer 2

I think you have some things backwards.
"Federal offenses" generally carry LESS punishment than state offenses, so if your goal is to have more punishment for criminals, leave them with the states.
Besides, the federal government already has too much power -- federal crimes are only interstate crimes or crimes against the national government, as it should be. The states are best equipped to deal with their own offenders.

I also think you are very short-sided. All these "get tough on crime" statements show an ignorance of the real world. The states (and other countries in the world) that have the LOWEST crime rates are those who have sentences that fit the crime, and that make an effort to insure prisoners have a chance to make it in the real world once they're released. Some exceptions to that, of course, like Saudi Arabia...but unless you want to live in a totalitarian Islamic state and chop off the hands of petty thieves, then they can be ignored. In the US, the states with the HIGHEST crime rates are those that have the toughest sentences and do the most executions (Texas, for example). All this get-tough talk ignores the fact that unless you kill the person committing a crime, they're going to get out someday...and if they have no chance of making it legally once they're released, they will turn to crime again.
It also ignores the thousands of prisoners who are innocent of their crimes, many of which are being released after 5, 10, 20 or more years in prison because of DNA evidence that clears them.

Locking people up and throwing away the key doesn't address the issues that contribute to crime, it just provides more revenge. And if you haven't learned by now that revenge serves no useful purpose, then you've got a lot of growing up to do.

Answer 3

Well, for one thing, I think you contradict yourself. First you say that offenders should be given the death penalty... but then you say that they should be given life in prison without parole for a 3rd offense. Doesn't make any sense.

Generally, I agree with the spirit of your idea. Murderers and sex offenders suck, and are not worthy of mercy. The problem is that the theory does not match up with reality. The fact is that our system of justice (in fact, NO system of justice) is perfect. There is no way to guarantee that no innocent people will be convicted accidently. Studies show that it happens all the time. The appeals process that results in these people not being executed "in a year MAX" is there for a reason, and that is to make CERTAIN that no one innocent is executed. Even then innocent people have been executed in this country. That is a fact.

I am a little confused about why you insist that this should all be done at the federal level. Why can't the states do it? The fact is that if every murder and sex offender case was handled in federal court, the costs in taxes and man hours would be beyond the capacity of the federal government to handle it. Everyone would be paying for it, and that is unfair. People in a peaceful town in Montana should not be forced to pay for the social inequity of a place like New Orleans or Detroit where the murder rate is sky-high. It is this social inequity that causes most violent crimes.

Throwing out amnesty completely is also a bad idea. This country is founded on fundamental laws of liberty and freedom. If you take away basic rights from criminals, you tarnish our Constitution and the basis on which this country was founded. Why should we be like countries like China, Saudi Arabia, or Iran that execute people at will with little to no justice? Are we not better than them? Personally, I don't want to be equated with countries like that. It is bad enough that most of the world compares the barbarity of our justice system to third-world countries. No reason to make it worse by eliminating the rights of criminals that are provided by our glorious Constitution.

These are just a couple of practical reasons that your idea is nice in theory, but in reality would not be worth implementing. This does not even consider any serious ethical, religious, or moral reasons for why capital punishment may or may not be wrong. Personally, I do not even think you need to consider these less objective arguments. The practical reasons against most capital punishment are pretty overwhelming in themselves, especially quick punishment that overturns our Constitution and the freedom of everyone in this country, guilty AND innocent. I support strong legislation against criminals, but there is a point at which you cross and you are taking away EVERYONE'S freedom; not just the criminals'.

Answer 4

I can't agree with you. Simply for the fact that sometimes innocent people go to jail and sometimes guilty people walk away free. Also, an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind. The crimes these people commit are horrid, and I can't believe how many of these people are out on the streets. And it sucks that these horrible people now live the rest of their lives on our tax dollars. But the American justice system is s***, pardon my language. Innocence is usually based on whether or not you can pay an expensive lawyer, not whether you committed a crime. And I don't think poverty is a good reason to kill people. I think, instead of locking them up for free health care/food/housing, we should rehabilitate and help people. Some people may be out of reach, but some aren't. As for the drug dealers, let me tell you something. As long as there are people to buy drugs, there will be people to sell them. That's simple supply and demand. The solution for the drug problem in America isn't to lock up the drug dealers, because another will still take his place. Maybe we should try lowering the demand...

Answer 5

Your thought about carrying out executions in a year is problematic. Here are some of the reasons.

Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. Many had already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person we are not likely to find that out and, also, the real criminal is still out there.

DNA is available in no more than 10% of murder cases. It is not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

Our appeals system is designed to make sure that the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

Answer 6

I diagree.

one- muder is too broad a crime. there is premedittated murder and intentional murder, but there is also accidental, neglegent, and extreme-emotion driven murder.
//// for instance a woman found a tape of her husband raping her daughter. she grabbed a shot gun and blew a hole in his head. although she did kill him, and not in self defense, is she really as bad as a muderer who kills someone to inherit money?

two- sex offenses are also murky at times. the laws have nothing to do with intent. my cousin has been passing for at least 21 since she was 16- if she lied and a man had sex with her, it would be his fault. even though he thought she was legal and she looked like an adult- IE no pedophilia.
and some states still have sodomy laws. so if someone has oral, anal, or non-heterosexual sex they can be charged as a sex offender. prostitution is also a sex crime. I think prostituion should be legal and regulated. and neither the sex worker or the client should be harshly charged

three- why would you want to make prisons 'horribly bad'?
does it make you feel better to know you have sunk to the level of a criminal and enjoy other's misery?
many criminals become criminals due to reason out of their control- this doesn't give them a free pass but it does get them some sympathy. other criminals are mentally ill or challenged but choose not to take meds or are 'smart enough' to know right from wrong. but they still shouldn't be treated like a fully functioning, non-disadvantaged criminal.

4- drug dealing is not the worst offence in the world. it becomes a big deal when there are turf wars.

5- I don't know how I feel about the rule of third offences. maybe it can be left up to the disgrustion of a jury or a judge.

6- we should focus more on prevention and rehibiliation. kids who misbehave are hauled off to boot camps where they are abused (firehoses, being restrained, left outside, beatn, starved, ect) all in an effort to show them that is good to behave. then they reoffend.
guards in jails and prisons swear, name-call, and act rudly with their charges. most criminals have low-self esteem and part of rehab is to rebuild that, give them a positve outlook of the world, tell them they can start again, and stop them from conforming with negiative groups.
how can they follow there rehab plans, when they are fed the opposite messages?

Answer 7

I completely agree consisting of your opinion. @ Kerry and could: What planet are you from???! Why are you so obsessed that somebody could be put in penitentiary who's harmless? i could be incorrect yet i myself do not think of that occurs very frequently. i think of you are able to drag your self into the actual international under no circumstances concepts the twenty first century. so some distance, the twenty first century has been utter cra.p ! from a criminal offense combating attitude. we've have been given people being actual kicked to death in the streets via finished strangers purely for the offenders to get some years in penitentiary, out in the previous their actual sentence is finished, probable even re-offending back. One sturdy element i will say on the subject of the twenty first century is that we've DNA finding out to often times coach no remember if somebody actual has raped or murdered somebody. wherein case do gooders can not placed forward their tiny argument that somebody harmless could get put in detention center. If it quite is been DNA shown that somebody is a serial assassin or rapist i don't see lots of a reason they could't get the death penalty. there is little need for them to be in this earth. in the event that they are released they're a risk to the universal public and in the event that they are saved in they are overcrowding the prisons as you're saying, and draining the country's economic equipment.

Answer 8

I agree that murder and sexual offenses should be considered federal crimes. Sexual predators cannot be cured. No matter how much they want to be, nor how hard they work at it. It is an illness which they cannot control. To the betterment of society, criminals who commit these types of offenses should be permanently locked up. How many times do we have to hear about a sex offender being let out on patrol only to commit the same crime again?

Personally, I think there are some crimes which are one offs. You kill someone, you're in for life--no parole. Rape someone--life, no parole.

Drug dealing is an entirely different issue. I say just tax them.

Answer 9

well it should be that way in a perfect world.
eye for an eye
but i put myself in the place of people who have been wrongfully convicted.
how sad to die just because you couldnt effectively prove your innocence.
taking a life does not bring back a life.
what if someone incorrectly or mistakenly identfied you as a murderer and you were sent to death row with only a year to live.
i agree with the tracking device.
why excuse marijuana? its still considered illegal without a prescription.

Answer 10

Except that all the wacko ACLU lawyers seem to think that these violent criminals are actually the victim etc..and that they deserve rights and such..

Personally I feel if the evidence is so inconclusive (DNA etc..) that it cannot be overturned then why wait a year?

Actually though I'd rather see the punishment fit the crime...
ex> sex offenders should have thier hands, penis and balls chopped off. (I dont mean surgically removed, I mean CHOPPED off).
murderers, should die by the method that they killed. Sure they get to die humanely in the gas chamber, but what about that man and woman they shot in the stomach, what about that blonde co-ed they knifed over and over, yah that's real humane.

hey ACLU people, actually try being a victim, or knowing a victim of a violent crime before you go and protect these perpetrators who do nothing but help to increase the fear in our society.

Know why crime was on a much smaller scale in older times (per captia, not total numbers per year)? b/c Crimes used to be punished. Do you know that criminals in a max-security penn on a Life sentence have a better daily life then the bums walking the street?! If that does not piss you off, then I do not know what does.
Why is it that a BUM has to beg for food, and a criminal is fed, clothed, bathed, gets access to TV, a gym, computers oh and a paying job if they "behave"...and to top it off, you mister John Q Taxpayer pay for that..

Only in america does crime pay..

Answer 11

Its a good idea in theory.But who is gonna pay for it ? The taxpayers? They can try and make it a federal law but doubt it. Most of these things fall under the jurisdiction of the state. When it all boils down its usually about $$$$$$$$$.