Civil death sentences, what do you think of them?

[Svartalf]

Why should the state get to seize something that wasn't gained via criminal activity?? That's very authoritarian of you..

If you got life, then what do you need money for?

To give to your relatives and/or dependents. Like everyone else does with their money when they die or no longer need it personally.

Given the lack of creature comforts to a basic prisoner, you need your money to sweeten up the ordinary.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that too.

[Scot Dutchy]

Prisons are supposed to be, rather unhealthy and hard. An average prisoner should not survive twenty years in prison, it is supposed to kill them. That's why a life sentence was considered twenty years. Prisons need to raise the average mortality rate of prisoners.

Maybe in your uncivilised world. We have other thoughts which is why our prisons are emptying and yours are filling.
We use prisons for rehabilitation and not punishment.

Dutch prisons are closing because the country is so safe

In 2013, 19 prisons in the Netherlands closed because the country didn't have enough criminals to fill them.

Now, five more are slated to close their doors by the end of the summer, according to internal documents obtained by The Telegraaf.

While these closures will result in the loss of nearly 2,000 jobs, only 700 of which will transition into other unknown roles within Dutch law enforcement, the trend of closing prisons follows a steady drop in crime since 2004.

These measures all add up to an unbelievably low incarceration rate: Although the Netherlands has a population of 17 million, only 11,600 people are locked up. That's a rate of 69 incarcerations per 100,000 people.

The US, meanwhile, has a rate of 716 per 100,000 — the highest in the world. It's marked largely by its lack of attention to social services and rehabilitation programmes once prisoners finish their sentences. Without a safety net to give them any other options, many fall back into their old habits.

[mistermack]

Why should the state get to seize something that wasn't gained via criminal activity?? That's very authoritarian of you..

If you got life, then what do you need money for?

To give to your relatives and/or dependents. Like everyone else does with their money when they die or no longer need it personally.

Lifers are not "everyone else" though. They are people who have wreaked havoc on innocent victims. And they are costing innocent taxpayers a fortune to keep.

I would rather see any available money go to the relatives and/or dependants of the victims. Anyway, it's not fair or logical for taxpayers to be paying out money to the relatives of lifers, unless they have a legitimate social security claim.

The nub of the question is what rights lifers should have. In my opinion, it's very few. The state has spared their life, and in return they should lose nearly all other rights, including the right to sue, and any rights to legal aid.
The only right I would give them is the right to get a warden or guard sacked, if they can prove malicious intent or criminal negligence.

[Scot Dutchy]

Try living in the 21st century for a change.

[mistermack]

Try living in the 21st century for a change.

You've never had a loved one murdered, have you?

It's just as nasty now, as it was then. I hope you never get a taste of it.

[Scot Dutchy]

What has that got to do with anything. Do you think retribution will achieve anything? Making an example will help? People have died so help all those involved and discover why it happened will have a far more positive effect than hanging out someone to dry but small minds have trouble perceiving these concepts.

Btw how do you know what is my experience? Dont make presumptions.

[mistermack]

What has that got to do with anything. Do you think retribution will achieve anything?

Yes. It will achieve retribution.

So people don't have to do it themselves. That's the whole purpose.
If people don't get justice, they will go and get it. Why on earth do you need informing of that?

That's what tells me you have no personal experience of it.

[pErvinalia]

Isn't depriving someone of their freedom for the rest of their life enough retribution?

[Scot Dutchy]

What has that got to do with anything. Do you think retribution will achieve anything?

Yes. It will achieve retribution.

So people don't have to do it themselves. That's the whole purpose.
If people don't get justice, they will go and get it. Why on earth do you need informing of that?

That's what tells me you have no personal experience of it.

More proof of moronic behaviour. JFCOAPS intelligence deserts many in certain situations. What are you achieving? Which childish part of your infantile brain does it appeal to?

Another presumption. Just because I dont display the same moronic attitude and are able to put into perspective as many do here and that causing any further pain is completely unjustified I cant have a personal experience.

You have no idea what justice is. You are part of the revenge mob. When all reason is thrown out of the window. I consider myself slightly more civilised than that.

Once the truth is found and the reasons and circumstances are discovered can you declare what is the suitable punishment.

Retribution plays no part.

[Rum]

I agree with Scott that retribution serves no purpose at all. It personalises the punishment and adds an unnecessary emotional element.

However deterrence is desirable. You need at least some fear of the consequences of breaking the law to be an element in restraining people from doing so.

Getting the balance right isn't easy - and this 'civil death sentence' notion certainly doesn't.

[Hermit]

What has that got to do with anything. Do you think retribution will achieve anything?

Yes. It will achieve retribution.

[Scot Dutchy]

It has been shown time and time again that severe sentencing does not work as a deterrent. It never works. It gives some form of perverse pleasure. Look at the American retribution system. Over 1% of the population is in prison. Anyone leaving has a 80% chance of returning. How many are serving life sentences for shop lifting which results from the three strikes law.
Rehabilitation is a dirty word. We are closing prisons. Would this have been the case if we had a retribution system?
Th UK cant build enough but that is also the result of the UK social and political systems. Until the principle of consensus is taken on board the UK will be an ever divided country.

[Scot Dutchy]

What has that got to do with anything. Do you think retribution will achieve anything?

Yes. It will achieve retribution.

Like in the southern states of America when blacks were burnt alive for looking at a white women.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[mistermack]

Nobody has an argument against my valid point then, that state retribution is there because otherwise, innocent people would be forced to do it themselves.

You people might be happy to see the rapist and killer of your daughter swanning around free, receiving counselling for their "problem-urges".
Others, decent people with balls, will want them dead. And quite rightly.

I think the decent balance is for the state to spare their life, but never allow them out free ever again.
And the only reason I think that, is that they might otherwise execute the wrong person.

Retribution is justice. All this bollocks about "it achieves nothing" is pathetic. It achieves justice.
It means people pay a price for the shit and heartbreak that they have caused. And that's the very essence of justice.