It's better than capital punishment....but is it still ethical?
A poor chap was imprisoned for 99 years. Some get 30 years...40 years or so. What's left after that? What life can an adult have after spending 40-50 years in prison? They may even die in the term. Every human has a right to live, but by putting them away for so many years, you are taking their right away from them. What about redemption? What about forgiveness? No human being deserves to be imprisoned for more than 20 years. No crime is worth that punishment.
2007-03-02 07:04:52 · 14 answers · asked by Razor 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Human Rights activists often say that...."Ask yourselves a question. Do such lifelong punishments reduce crime? No. No. No. Then why not give them a chance to redeem themselves? I am not saying that forgive them. Punish them, but not more than 20 years.
2007-03-02 07:20:00 · update #1
What people don't understand is that criminals are just humans....their ways of expressing anger are harmful....but they are mortals. You can't expect them to be like robots. It's a human nature.
2007-03-02 15:15:39 · update #2
Criminals don't waste their time worrying about the ethics of their crimes.
They don't worry about their victims rights.
Let their victims decide if they should be forgiven.
A murder victim doesn't get a second chance.
A victim of a sexual assault never gets the chance to live their life without the memory of that assualt.
Are you saying that the criminal has more rights than the victim?
2007-03-02 07:10:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Well they violated someone else's rights. Maybe even their right to life, in extreme cases. You think it's fair to the victim, or their family and friends, that no punishment is handed out?
The system might not be perfect, but there's nothing to debate over imprisonment. It's not inhumane. There's nothing cruel or unusual about being sent to prison for committing a crime. So they loose a few years? They shouldn't have done the crime in the first place. It's illegal for a reason.
Life sentences without opportunity of parole are usually only given when the criminal committed murder.
2007-03-02 07:17:35 · answer #2 · answered by pamiekins 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whatever the prisoner did to land such a sentence is unethical. His punishment is ethical. However, it can be argued that to make the family of the victims continue to pay for the criminal is unethical. It's unjust. Maybe you should be less concerned with the ethics and rights of criminals who made a choice than with their victims and the rights that were taken from them. Spend more time standing up for the victims please.
2007-03-02 07:25:52 · answer #3 · answered by Thegustaffa 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have too much empathy for the criminal. Some people will be a threat to society as long as they can move and breath. When they have committed capital crimes they have given away their right to life. I doubt these types are redeemable. You can not forgive them, only their victims can do that. Yes some human beings deserve to be imprisoned forever.
2007-03-02 07:15:28 · answer #4 · answered by lestermount 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Hi Maddy, I think I can spend a bit less time on this question than on so many others of yours! Not that I think it less serious or less deserving of long comment, but simply because it is better than killing them. There are some individuals who do not deserve to ever walk freely about society again. However, these are the most serious of violent criminals, and not white color crimes. Sadly, often white color criminals who take monetary items often wind up with longer sentences than violent criminals do. When nonviolent offenders can garner longer and more serious sentences than the most violent offenders there is something inherently wrong with the justice system. With that said, I do indeed believe it is moral, just and ethical to lock somebody up for his or her entire life. There must be justice and is it justice to allow somebody who tortured and murdered several individuals to walk out of prison simply because they have grown old? Of course, not, that is simply a wrong way of viewing justice. The penalty is the time spent away from free society, of not being able to walk amongst those who really strive to live according to our cultural and societal rules and ethics. To allow somebody so violent to walk out free after committing atrocities when younger, and simply because they have aged is not justice and therefore is wrong. It is not a matter of deterrence. It is a matter of justice and safety of society at large. Individuals can and do forge healthy and productive lives behind bars. Be that as it may, even if they did not, justice must be served and it can be served with mercy and forgiveness.
As with most of my beliefs, I believe most strongly and firmly. This does mean I will not one day come to a realization that a belief or opinion may be mistaken and based on information and wisdom I outgrew. I have changed a lot over the years and will continue to strive towards growth in all areas of life. These questions are great opportunities for growth as it makes one think and not stay stagnant and/or narrow of mind and heat. So, again, I thank you for such great questions and look for more. I can’t be on Answers as much as I was once as I have so much to do now. I am finally in class again and it is just wonderful!! I will try to come as I can and I will look for your questions. I wish you a great day and a wonderful week. Serenity
p.s. Word allows me to spellcheck and watch my grammer! I then cut and paste here, so I can now avoid looking ignorant or uneducated due to my lousy spelling! Cool!! LOL
2007-03-05 08:11:45 · answer #5 · answered by Serenity 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the only component of it that i hit upon unpalatable is the certainty instruct for fund raising. you will notice they have already got seventy 8,000 volunteers for a one way holiday. $6 billion isn't inevitably too small for a manned Mars project, presuming there is no retrieval. Making it a one way holiday extremely simplifies issues, from a logistics and engineering attitude, and calls for boosting plenty much less stuff. the time-physique is perchance quite confident, yet no longer inevitably out of the question if each and every little thing is going real (notice that the previous 4 words are sure to summon Murphy), provided that their launch motor vehicle is already in late tiers of progression.
2016-10-02 06:49:05 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it ethical?
Of course it is. Aside from a "three strikes" offender, you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get life w/o parole.
Where were the victim's rights? Violated. Once you did that, you forfeit your own rights.
This is the one time where the Bible is pertinent to modern day society: An eye for an eye.
2007-03-02 07:09:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Aint got the time, don't do the crime. What I hate is I have to float the tax bill for these losers who get sentenced to these terms, and live a nice cooshly life in prison!
2007-03-02 07:09:07 · answer #8 · answered by J S 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It is not only ethical, it is moral, it is just, and it is legal. It gives the prisoner barely enough time to try to pray to God to forgive him. It also keeps the SOB off the streets. If he were a good person he would hang himself in jail and save us the expense of taking care of him.
2007-03-02 07:19:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
And I suppose you feel that taking someones life is ethical? How can you justify letting a murderer out of prison just because its ethical?
2007-03-02 07:09:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋