How should violent criminals pay their debt to society?

[medic1]

I could not agree with you more, Jason. The "punishment" period for those horrific crimes is on a par with "la-la land". However. i cannot be swayed on my stance on Capital Punishment, be it by The State, or a volunteer.
Most Dr's who carry out those lethal injections, are indeed volunteers. This just goes against the grain that i was taught, "Do no harm".
I respect your viewpoint, i just cannot agree with it, Adam...

 

[medic1]

The person carrying out the execution, is killing another, that is doing harm. Remove these evil people by whole-life terms in a maximum
security prison.
Though, you will then get many saying, "Why should we pay for their upkeep", which is a valid point. Though i still stand by my original post.

 

[Kulindahr]

I respect the opposition and live within circles of people who largely agree with it.

On the other hand, the two year-ish sentence the father served seems weak for such monstrous actions. The law ridiculously minimized the abuse because he was a parent. What exactly would the sentence have been if this had been someone else's child or an adult so imprisoned?

The injustice of the negligible sentencing increases the clamor for blood, even if it is unjustified in an absolute reckoning.

And, I'm flexible. The State doesn't have to be the agent if a volunteer would assist the community.

My reaction to that ridiculously early release was that some foundation should publish the father's and stepmother's pictures all across the state and beyond.

 

[Kulindahr]

The person carrying out the execution, is killing another, that is doing harm. Remove these evil people by whole-life terms in a maximum
security prison.
Though, you will then get many saying, "Why should we pay for their upkeep", which is a valid point. Though i still stand by my original post.

Making taxpayers pay for the upkeep of such vile excuses for humanoids is insulting to the dignity of the public.

 

[mikey3000]

They should be compassionately and swiftly destroyed. If they are sick and no hope for reformation, then put them down for their and society's sake. Destroying someone maliciously is evil and a crime, but with compassion and sorrow in your heart, and for the safety of society isn't.

 

[xbuzzerx]

They should be compassionately and swiftly destroyed. If they are sick and no hope for reformation, then put them down for their and society's sake. Destroying someone maliciously is evil and a crime, but with compassion and sorrow in your heart, and for the safety of society isn't.

How does one determine that, though? Whether or not someone is capable of reformation, I mean.

 

[Kulindahr]

Objectively, I wish we had a Mars colony with terraforming work -- make it a modern version of Australia. They could be put to work in places where there would be no access to children.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Objectively, I wish we had a Mars colony with terraforming work -- make it a modern version of Australia. They could be put to work in places where there would be no access to children.

Could we send some current Australians there?

 

[mikey3000]

How does one determine that, though? Whether or not someone is capable of reformation, I mean.

That's where your scientists come into play.

But lets blur the lines a little. How should these parents be dealt with?

 

[xbuzzerx]

That's where your scientists come into play.

But lets blur the lines a little. How should these parents be dealt with?

Well there are definitely psychological disorders for which it is known there is no reliable treatment. But those tend to be severe psychological disturbances that might qualify someone for clinical insanity in the first place. But how do scientists "measure" whether someone abusive because of their own personal history of abuse is capable of reform or not?

 

[mikey3000]

I think you answered your own question in the first sentence. Medical professionals have their methods and we have to trust that they work. If not, then you'd be putting everyone in jails and could end up with an incredible overcrowding situation...kinda just like now.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

ans planet spin anoda day

* at .0000048596471163 bit slowa *

coor folk get bit free time

thankyou

 

[Kulindahr]

Could we send some current Australians there?

Well, someone would have to show them how it's done.

 

[bankside]

Some crimes permit the criminal to make complete restitution. If someone steals my property, it is often simple enough to fully restore my loss, including losses for the inconvenience or distress. But not all crimes permit of restitution. I think punitive and dissuasive measures should be part of the law; even more so in cases where restitution is not possible.

Murder is of course the ultimate extinguishment of the victim's rights; to have been left alone in the first place; to go on with their day; to be able to move past the experience. I don't think a murderer can make a claim that ethics requires us to spare his life; his life really is forfeit for us to dispose of as we see fit in whatever way we find most contributes to our safety, and our convenience. That would be the case, but that he can make a claim that ethics requires us to permit an appeal against a miscarriage of justice. As there can be no appeal against death, the death penalty is clearly unethical, at least on the first conviction of murder.

If there is a subsequent conviction in an unrelated case, I think it may be ethical to allow the death penalty, though I would likely be persuaded by statistical analysis and a qualitative assessment of the capacity of a given justice system to correct its own errors, to be free of corruption or incompetence, etc.

With murder out of the way, this sets the limits for other crimes where complete restitution may not be possible. So, I would look very harshly on crimes causing permanent or persistent physical or psychological injury. No one who injures someone would have an easy time in my courts or my jails so long as the injury remained unhealed.

Of course this applies to rape as well. On that subject I do think it is important for the law to recognise that it is possible that the body and mind of the victim will heal, and that their joy will heal as well. I think we have a duty to assert and support a victim's right to declare themselves whole again after the experience, if they come to feel that way. Perhaps not that it was inconsequential, but that it was not insurmountable. The law needs to recognise that a victim of abuse may conclude his or her life has entirely resumed its course.

In my mind, that represents the earliest possible moment where considering parole of a rapist would be ethically warranted. Based on that requirement, some imprisoned rapists may never even have the opportunity to apply for parole. However there is one more aspect I would write into the law: I profoundly feel that the memory of the event belongs to the victim alone, for their sole reference, to be recalled or recounted only in their absolute discretion, at the time and in the manner of their chosing. The abuser is not entitled to the memory of what occurred, the events, the reactions, the betrayal of privacy, or some stray detail which even the victim may struggle to recall. None of that belongs to the criminal. To have memories of all that lodged in the abuser's brain represents the continued possession of something stolen.

I would thus as a matter of standard practice have abusers undergo some procedure similar to a lobotomy. The memories would be removed, regardless of consequence to the convict, by whatever physical procedure is necessary for the criminal's mind to relinquish that which it is not entitled to know.

One might also argue that neither is the criminal entitled to be free of those memories; thus there might be a role for the victim to determine in the course of time that the criminal's memories should be left.

Ethically, I think that is all a rapist or other abuser is entitled to. I'd make the same caveats about being able to reverse a miscarriage of justice, so I might not get to implement all of that, but I think that is the baseline.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course this applies to rape as well. On that subject I do think it is important for the law to recognise that it is possible that the body and mind of the victim will heal, and that their joy will heal as well. I think we have a duty to assert and support a victim's right to declare themselves whole again after the experience, if they come to feel that way. Perhaps not that it was inconsequential, but that it was not insurmountable. The law needs to recognise that a victim of abuse may conclude his or her life has entirely resumed its course.

In my mind, that represents the earliest possible moment where considering parole of a rapist would be ethically warranted. Based on that requirement, some imprisoned rapists may never even have the opportunity to apply for parole. However there is one more aspect I would write into the law: I profoundly feel that the memory of the event belongs to the victim alone, for their sole reference, to be recalled or recounted only in their absolute discretion, at the time and in the manner of their chosing. The abuser is not entitled to the memory of what occurred, the events, the reactions, the betrayal of privacy, or some stray detail which even the victim may struggle to recall. None of that belongs to the criminal. To have memories of all that lodged in the abuser's brain represents the continued possession of something stolen.

I would thus as a matter of standard practice have abusers undergo some procedure similar to a lobotomy. The memories would be removed, regardless of consequence to the convict, by whatever physical procedure is necessary for the criminal's mind to relinquish that which it is not entitled to know.

One might also argue that neither is the criminal entitled to be free of those memories; thus there might be a role for the victim to determine in the course of time that the criminal's memories should be left.

Ethically, I think that is all a rapist or other abuser is entitled to. I'd make the same caveats about being able to reverse a miscarriage of justice, so I might not get to implement all of that, but I think that is the baseline.

If we could move/change memories like that, then the memories of the rapist should be replaced with the memory of his victim(s), until such time as the victim has come to terms with it all and okays those memories being destroyed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Merits aside, I don't believe there exists the science required to remove specific memories. Lobotomies separate the frontal lobe which pacifies the victim/patient, but doesn't erase memories.

Should the surgical excision of memory occur, that might be deemed cruel and unusual, as that would leave the perpetrator with no memory of the crime, which would result in the convicted "believing" the crime never occurred in an organic memory sense.

I knew a social worker who wished that the memories could be left right up to the moment the rape or other abuse began, and what followed be replaced by a few moments of sheer terror/horror. Sort of the ultimate in operant conditioning, I guess, carried out in the person's own mind.

 

[bankside]

Merits aside, I don't believe there exists the science required to remove specific memories. Lobotomies separate the frontal lobe which pacifies the victim/patient, but doesn't erase memories.

Should the surgical excision of memory occur, that might be deemed cruel and unusual, as that would leave the perpetrator with no memory of the crime, which would result in the convicted "believing" the crime never occurred in an organic memory sense.

That's a serious objection. But I think if the abuser is plagued with the bewildering sense of "Why did this happen to me?" then perhaps they are experiencing something from which they can develop the empathy absent in them at the time of their crimes.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Objectively, I wish we had a Mars colony with terraforming work -- make it a modern version of Australia….

National Library of Australia says 162,000 can be taken as a good approximation for all convict arrivals.

The number of convicts transported to North America is not verified although it has been estimated to be 50,000 by John Dunmore Lang and 120,000 by Thomas Keneally.

 

[xbuzzerx]

National Library of Australia says 162,000 can be taken as a good approximation for all convict arrivals.

The number of convicts transported to North America is not verified although it has been estimated to be 50,000 by John Dunmore Lang and 120,000 by Thomas Keneally.

Most of ours were debtors.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Most of ours were debtors.

A week ago, you said—

It was always my understanding that most prisoners exported to America were debtors; most exported to Australia were more akin to "felons."

I think we need some facts on this issue which finished 172 years ago.