Evil

[mistermack]

Mistermack

Most people would share your feelings there. I am pragmatic, though. A person who reaches the age of 70 may still live another 20 years. At $100,000 per year to keep him locked up in a maximum security prison, that is $2 million paid by the taxpayer. Since a 70 year old is seriously unlikely to offend again, save the money and release him.

Since the peak in violent crime rates is 18 to 24, then being locked up until age 70 is a pretty damn horrible punishment.

Most of the money spent on prisons is spent in the early years. It doesn't cost that much to keep the over 70s.
You have to remember that if they are let out, you have to pay them a pension, and give them healthcare, and housing, and supervision, which all costs a fortune anyway.
It's probably cost-neutral to keep them inside at that age. Or even cheaper, if they die earlier.
In fact, faced with being locked up for life, more of them might end it all, which might save more money.

As far as the punishment being horrible is concerned, good. If your crime was bad enough to warrant a life sentence, then the horribler, the better. That's justice for the victim, and their loved ones.

[Blind groper]

Mistermack

You have a valid point in saying society has to pay for the over-70 person anyway, though it is not a total point, since keeping someone in prison is much, much more expensive than giving them a tiny pension, and a place in an old folk's home, and then ignoring them.

I must point out, though, that your rather vengeful comments on punishment for those who 'deserve' it is out of place in the hopefully enlightened 21st century. We do not know why people offend in the first place, and if we did know we might be more understanding.

But doing nasty things to offenders actually achieves nothing if you are pragmatic. It may even induce resentment and make their behaviour worse.

I am not against constructive imprisonment, but I am definitely opposed to knee jerk emotional and vengeful approaches to 'punishing' offenders. A humane approach should be followed.

[Seth]

Mistermack

Most people would share your feelings there. I am pragmatic, though. A person who reaches the age of 70 may still live another 20 years. At $100,000 per year to keep him locked up in a maximum security prison, that is $2 million paid by the taxpayer. Since a 70 year old is seriously unlikely to offend again, save the money and release him.

Since the peak in violent crime rates is 18 to 24, then being locked up until age 70 is a pretty damn horrible punishment.

Most of the money spent on prisons is spent in the early years. It doesn't cost that much to keep the over 70s.

Actually, it costs a hell of a lot more the older and more infirm they get because the law requires that we give them free medical care to keep them alive, and sometimes to change their gender assignment, among other ridiculous perks liberal judges have decided are required to be "humane" in their incarceration.

You have to remember that if they are let out, you have to pay them a pension, and give them healthcare, and housing, and supervision, which all costs a fortune anyway.

Good reason just to execute them right away.

It's probably cost-neutral to keep them inside at that age. Or even cheaper, if they die earlier.

No, it's not. See above.

In fact, faced with being locked up for life, more of them might end it all, which might save more money.

I'm all for that. A convenient noose hanging from the ceiling of every cell in every prison would be a good thing.

As far as the punishment being horrible is concerned, good. If your crime was bad enough to warrant a life sentence, then the horribler, the better. That's justice for the victim, and their loved ones.

Most victims and loved ones would just like them to be dead so they don't have to keep track of the killer for the rest of their lives to make sure some asswipe liberal judge or the ACLU doesn't get them released.

[Seth]

Mistermack

You have a valid point in saying society has to pay for the over-70 person anyway, though it is not a total point, since keeping someone in prison is much, much more expensive than giving them a tiny pension, and a place in an old folk's home, and then ignoring them.

I must point out, though, that your rather vengeful comments on punishment for those who 'deserve' it is out of place in the hopefully enlightened 21st century. We do not know why people offend in the first place, and if we did know we might be more understanding.

I don't particularly care why they did it, only that they did it, and only that they have absolutely no opportunity to do it again, to anyone, anywhere, ever.

But doing nasty things to offenders actually achieves nothing if you are pragmatic. It may even induce resentment and make their behaviour worse.

If they are dead, they can't resent anything.

I am not against constructive imprisonment, but I am definitely opposed to knee jerk emotional and vengeful approaches to 'punishing' offenders. A humane approach should be followed.

Well, we can kill them at least as humanely as we kill cattle, that's fine with me.

[Blind groper]

Seth

There is absolutely not one rational reason to kill an offender. It is not cheaper. It does not reduce offending, since they cannot offend in a maximum security prison. And it does not deter others. All these points have been proven by researchers in penology.

If you are arguing for not releasing offenders until they are too old to reoffend, I agree with you. I agree that weekend passes are ludicrous. Early parole is silly. Short time in prison, releasing them while young is crazy. But killing them cannot be justified.

So we are left with unjustifiable and emotional reasons for the death penalty. It boils down to a caveman-like desire for revenge.

[Seth]

Seth

There is absolutely not one rational reason to kill an offender.

There's at least one indisputable rational reason to do so: that person can never harm anyone else.

It is not cheaper.

That's a process problem that can be resolved.

It does not reduce offending,

Right, it does not "reduce" it, it eliminates re-offending absolutely.

since they cannot offend in a maximum security prison.

Tell that to the many guards and inmates who get injured and killed by lifers in "maximum security prisons" every year.

And it does not deter others.

Sure it does, but even if it doesn't, so what? It prevents a convicted offender from re-offending.

All these points have been proven by researchers in penology.

Quit playing with your penis and try using your brain.

If you are arguing for not releasing offenders until they are too old to reoffend, I agree with you. I agree that weekend passes are ludicrous. Early parole is silly. Short time in prison, releasing them while young is crazy. But killing them cannot be justified.

Of course it can: "You killed my child, therefore you do not deserve to draw another breath, ever."

So we are left with unjustifiable and emotional reasons for the death penalty. It boils down to a caveman-like desire for revenge.

Fine by me. If other would-be criminals know that the state is going to avenge the victims by killing the perpetrators and decide not to commit the crime, even once, then it's worth it. Besides, "revenge" would be giving the convict over to the family of the victim so that they can do with him as they please before he's executed...if he lives through their revenge in the first place.

If criminals are going to act like savages, then they deserve to be treated like savages.

[Blind groper]

Seth

If penology has any point whatever, it is to reduce crime. A lot of research has been done to find ways to do this. Executing murderers instead of locking them up for life has been shown not to reduce crime.

Executing criminals also costs more. The only way to reduce that cost is also to increase the chance of killing someone innocent. Even so, any execution carries a risk that the wrong person is being killed, and the chance exists that you are killing someone innocent.

At the end of the day, the true reason criminals get executed is to satisfy the worst emotions of the populace, and give them a feeling of revenge achieved. Not a creditable reason.

On the other hand, life imprisonment (till the person is too old to reoffend) means a cheaper 'solution', and no chance of killing an innocent person. It can be done humanely, but is still something most people would try hard to avoid having happen to them.

If the policing is good enough, and seen to be good enough to make that fate a probability for any murderer, then it is a deterrent just as potent as the death penalty.

It is sad that the USA has such a low resolution level for murder (only 70% as opposed to 90% in my country), as this weakens the deterrent effect. That may be one more reason why the USA has such a disgustingly high murder rate. But the answer to that is better policing, not the death penalty.

[mistermack]

Actually, it costs a hell of a lot more the older and more infirm they get because the law requires that we give them free medical care to keep them alive, and sometimes to change their gender assignment, among other ridiculous perks liberal judges have decided are required to be "humane" in their incarceration.

I'm sure it does, in the cess pit that you inhabit.
Not in the civilised world though.

[Seth]

Seth

If penology has any point whatever, it is to reduce crime. A lot of research has been done to find ways to do this. Executing murderers instead of locking them up for life has been shown not to reduce crime.

Lie. It reduces the amount of crime that criminal can commit. And the primary purpose of penology is to protect the public from criminals for a time.

Executing criminals also costs more.

Only because we wish it to be so. I'm not bothered by the cost if the end result is the end of a violent predator who cannot be permitted to exist.

The only way to reduce that cost is also to increase the chance of killing someone innocent.

Like the new victims of the predator, for example.

Even so, any execution carries a risk that the wrong person is being killed, and the chance exists that you are killing someone innocent.

Yes, it does. That militates for changes to the system, not abandonment of the death penalty.

At the end of the day, the true reason criminals get executed is to satisfy the worst emotions of the populace, and give them a feeling of revenge achieved. Not a creditable reason.

That's your opinion. I don't see that achieving revenge as a part of ensuring public safety and vindicating the rights of the victims and their families is morally incorrect. If it helps to ameliorate the anguish of the survivors to extract that revenge, then I'm okay with that because they deserve to be acknowledged and cared for more than the criminal predator does.

On the other hand, life imprisonment (till the person is too old to reoffend) means a cheaper 'solution', and no chance of killing an innocent person. It can be done humanely, but is still something most people would try hard to avoid having happen to them.

If life in prison is done "humanely" according to the ACLU and panty-waist liberal apologists it means placing every inmate and guard the person comes into contact with in mortal danger because the killer has nothing whatever to lose and might as well kill as many people as he likes.

If the policing is good enough, and seen to be good enough to make that fate a probability for any murderer, then it is a deterrent just as potent as the death penalty.

Except when "life sentence" isn't actually a life sentence, but instead gets the predator released eventually, which happens all the time, as I've demonstrated.

It is sad that the USA has such a low resolution level for murder (only 70% as opposed to 90% in my country), as this weakens the deterrent effect. That may be one more reason why the USA has such a disgustingly high murder rate. But the answer to that is better policing, not the death penalty.

Better policing is a great thing, but the death penalty makes sure that individual can never harm anyone else, which is the desired result.

[Seth]

Actually, it costs a hell of a lot more the older and more infirm they get because the law requires that we give them free medical care to keep them alive, and sometimes to change their gender assignment, among other ridiculous perks liberal judges have decided are required to be "humane" in their incarceration.

I'm sure it does, in the cess pit that you inhabit.
Not in the civilised world though.

Oh, I'd be willing to bet that Oz has plenty of criminal-coddlers who demand all sorts of perks and protections for inmates, and that people who have no business being allowed out of their cage get set free because of liberal simps and apologists.

I've always thought that if you advocate for someone's release, and they are released, you should be required to live with them and be responsible for their future behavior. If they re-offend, then YOU go to jail right along with them.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As I said before, I am not in favour of releasing serious criminals until there is strong reason to believe they will not reoffend. The only such strong reason I know of is that they get too old, meaning at least 65 years old, and possibly even older.

However, I see no reason why long term criminals should not be given a few luxuries. Being kept in prison for 40 years is a terrible punishment. It is not necessary to make it worse. Give the bastards a good TV, a computer (though not able to use email), books, computer games and any other such passtime, as long as it does not permit harm to others or permit communication outside the prison (which can lead to harm to others).

I would Also make sure that all long term prisoners are kept in solitary confinement, with direct communication with other prisoners only via electronic means, or through steel meshed screens, so that violence is not possible. However, with that proviso, let them talk to each other all they like. If they are in prison for 40 plus years, talking is not going to harm anyone.

The financial cost of giving prisoners a comfortable cell, and a few toys is absolutely picayune compared to the $100,000 per year it costs to keep them locked up. So why not do it?

[Seth]

Seth

As I said before, I am not in favour of releasing serious criminals until there is strong reason to believe they will not reoffend. The only such strong reason I know of is that they get too old, meaning at least 65 years old, and possibly even older.

Dude, I'm turning 61 this year and I can kill you in a heartbeat if I want to. Eighty-five year-old little old ladies can kill you with the twitch of their index finger if they want to. Jack up the age to 100 and I might agree. Otherwise someone who has committed a heinous enough crime to be imprisoned for life probably ought to be dead instead.

However, I see no reason why long term criminals should not be given a few luxuries.

Er, because they are criminals and don't deserve any luxuries.

Being kept in prison for 40 years is a terrible punishment.

Depends on the crime.

It is not necessary to make it worse.

It's not necessary to make it better. Do the crime, do the time. Sit in a concrete box and ruminate on the error of your ways sounds like just the ticket for vicious criminals.

Give the bastards a good TV, a computer (though not able to use email), books, computer games and any other such passtime, as long as it does not permit harm to others or permit communication outside the prison (which can lead to harm to others).

Let them read books. Or take educational classes.

I would Also make sure that all long term prisoners are kept in solitary confinement, with direct communication with other prisoners only via electronic means, or through steel meshed screens, so that violence is not possible. However, with that proviso, let them talk to each other all they like. If they are in prison for 40 plus years, talking is not going to harm anyone.

Except potentially anybody they come into contact with during their incarceration. You do realize that you can't just put someone in a cell and weld it shut. You do have to take them out from time to time if for no other reason than to toss the cell and make sure they haven't concealed a shank somewhere. Every time corrections officers have to come into physical contact with an inmate they are placed at risk. Then there's the medical personnel who have to examine or treat them from time to time.

Too much risk for prison employees from wanton killers with nothing to lose. Put a pill in their head and nobody has to worry anymore.

The financial cost of giving prisoners a comfortable cell, and a few toys is absolutely picayune compared to the $100,000 per year it costs to keep them locked up. So why not do it?

Er, because they are in prison because they could not obey the rules of civilized society, therefore they don't get to enjoy the perks of civilized society. They withdrew themselves from the benefits of society by becoming outlaws, and we owe them nothing at all. Less than nothing if you ask me.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Again you show no respect for good statistics. You are so often wrong because you talk about individuals and their occasional actions, rather than the overall trend. Locking murderers up for life very rarely results in prison guards getting hurt or killed. It does happen, of course, but so rarely.

There are research results showing that prisoners who are treated badly are far more likely to maim or kill guards, or riot, or otherwise make genuine trouble. Treating prisoners humanely is a cheap way of reducing trouble.

As I said before, there is not a single rational reason for the death penalty. There is even a study, which I read several decades back, which showed that anywhere there was a highly publicised execution of a murderer, then in the area where it was publicised, the murder rate actually rose for about 3 weeks. The researchers asked some of the murderers why they had responded to the publicised execution that way, and the reply was that, if the government could get revenge by killing people, so could they. Remember that murderers do not think like the rest of us, and their warped 'logic' can result in something we did not predict.

[pErvinalia]

Most victims and loved ones would just like them to be dead ...

Citation?

[JimC]

Most victims and loved ones would just like them to be dead ...

Citation?

I wouldn't be surprised if that were the fact, but it is not in itself a compelling argument, however understandable the sentiment might be.