What's an appropriate sentence for child rape?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Is the death penalty an effective deterrant? It satisfies people's need for revenge but that shouldn't be the motive when dealing out punishment. Our goal should be to reduce these types of things in the future. Whatever has proven to be the effective deterrant should be the appropriate sentence.

This has come up in another thread on another forum I've visited and several have argued with links that the death penalty has shown to not be the most effective deterrant. I'm not sure myself.

[Bingo]

I could get my head around the idea of the death penalty if someone could guarantee me that there would never be an instance of a person put to death for a crime he didn't commit.

until that point though? Yikes ... too risky.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 11 2005, 01:46 PM
Is the death penalty an effective deterrant? It satisfies people's need for revenge but that shouldn't be the motive when dealing out punishment. Our goal should be to reduce these types of things in the future. Whatever has proven to be the effective deterrant should be the appropriate sentence.

This has come up in another thread on another forum I've visited and several have argued with links that the death penalty has shown to not be the most effective deterrant. I'm not sure myself.

This may be a little simplistic, but they do have the death penalty in the States yet they have a lot more violent crime.

I personally don't think it's a deterrent. Criminals, I would imagine, don't think they are going to get caught for the crime.

When the justice system becomes foolproof then maybe it can be discussed. We bitch and moan about the government being incompetent all the time but we'd be willing to give them the power to execute people? No thanks.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 11 2005, 12:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 11 2005, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@May 11 2005, 11:48 AM
Since the death penalty ain't around (yet), I'd say life, no parole, in solitary.

What do you mean by "yet"? Do you think it's actually going to happen? [/b][/quote]
I don't think any party has plans to bring it back, but I could see it returning one day... wishful thinking maybe. I'm not gonna pretend I have anything to back that up with.

I think that once the citizenry realize that we are as close to Warp Drive as we are to unlocking the mysteries of the brain necessary for real rehabilitation, we might come to the conclusion that letting these rapists and murderers have a second chance of life may be too dangerous.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+May 11 2005, 06:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ May 11 2005, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@May 11 2005, 10:59 AM
If the children are your country's future, it's greatest natural resouce, then wouldn't tampering with it be treason?

[/b][/quote]
Greater than coal?!?!

[Agamemnon]

I'm against the death penalty.

Before I get crucified, I realize I'm in a significant minority here. I don't really like the idea of legal institutional punishment as we know it. I think its basically torture, and the only reason its not labelled as such is because there are worse forms of torture that the actual word is reserved for.

I believe that, when violating the law, the offender's freedom should be taken away. I don't get this irrational need to create and maintain misery in the offender's life. I don't see how its a solution. I don't see what it fixes.

In my 'utopia', prisons are places that remove freedom, but not happiness. When you commit a crime, you forfeit your freedom. I think its pretty vindictive of us to also require they forfeit happiness. What does that make us? What does that make them? How can we say, 'I don't want him executed, just absolutely miserable for the rest of his life'. What's the real difference here? We sleep more soundly knowing the individual is in agony rather than oblivion?

Didn't Ghandi say 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind'?

Of course, I doubt Ghandi would win a US/Albertan election.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 11 2005, 01:31 PM
I'm against the death penalty.

Before I get crucified, I realize I'm in a significant minority here. I don't really like the idea of legal institutional punishment as we know it. I think its basically torture, and the only reason its not labelled as such is because there are worse forms of torture that the actual word is reserved for.

I believe that, when violating the law, the offender's freedom should be taken away. I don't get this irrational need to create and maintain misery in the offender's life. I don't see how its a solution. I don't see what it fixes.

In my 'utopia', prisons are places that remove freedom, but not happiness. When you commit a crime, you forfeit your freedom. I think its pretty vindictive of us to also require they forfeit happiness. What does that make us? What does that make them? How can we say, 'I don't want him executed, just absolutely miserable for the rest of his life'. What's the real difference here? We sleep more soundly knowing the individual is in agony rather than oblivion?

Didn't Ghandi say 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind'?

Of course, I doubt Ghandi would win a US/Albertan election.

If you don't take away more than freedom you'll end up with people with bad day to day situations on the outside killing and raping people in order to get to the inside and be fed, etc without strings.

Sure they can't leave, but if it's not unpleasant it may be too much of a step up from their every day lives, leaving society at risk.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+May 11 2005, 03:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ May 11 2005, 03:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@May 11 2005, 10:59 AM
I have no problem giving the death penalty for something like that. If the children are your country's future, it's greatest natural resouce, then wouldn't tampering with it be treason?

Hang'em

Huh? It is wrong and sick and I fully believe that with every moral fiber of my body, but treason it is not. [/b][/quote]
basically I was using a logical stretch to the one crime that still carries the dealth penalty in this country.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 11 2005, 01:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 11 2005, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Greater than coal?!?! [/b][/quote]
Best Simpsons reference ever

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 11 2005, 05:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 11 2005, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Greater than coal?!?! [/b][/quote]
"help get these ugh things off of me!"

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout+May 11 2005, 01:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maritime Q-Scout @ May 11 2005, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Huh? It is wrong and sick and I fully believe that with every moral fiber of my body, but treason it is not.

basically I was using a logical stretch to the one crime that still carries the dealth penalty in this country. [/b][/quote]
I suggest you read up on your criminal offences, because treason is not punishable by the death penalty.

Yup just checked the Crim Code of Canada and under section 47 subsections 1 and 2, it ispunishable by life in prison.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Bingo+May 11 2005, 02:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ May 11 2005, 02:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@May 11 2005, 01:31 PM
I'm against the death penalty.

Before I get crucified, I realize I'm in a significant minority here. I don't really like the idea of legal institutional punishment as we know it. I think its basically torture, and the only reason its not labelled as such is because there are worse forms of torture that the actual word is reserved for.

I believe that, when violating the law, the offender's freedom should be taken away. I don't get this irrational need to create and maintain misery in the offender's life. I don't see how its a solution. I don't see what it fixes.

In my 'utopia', prisons are places that remove freedom, but not happiness. When you commit a crime, you forfeit your freedom. I think its pretty vindictive of us to also require they forfeit happiness. What does that make us? What does that make them? How can we say, 'I don't want him executed, just absolutely miserable for the rest of his life'. What's the real difference here? We sleep more soundly knowing the individual is in agony rather than oblivion?

Didn't Ghandi say 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind'?

Of course, I doubt Ghandi would win a US/Albertan election.

If you don't take away more than freedom you'll end up with people with bad day to day situations on the outside killing and raping people in order to get to the inside and be fed, etc without strings.

Sure they can't leave, but if it's not unpleasant it may be too much of a step up from their every day lives, leaving society at risk. [/b][/quote]
I agree with Bingo completely, but I totally understand where Agamemnon is coming from.

As much as I hate philosophy, Kant has an interesting view on punishment. He essentially believes that we have to punish people because they ought to be punished. Anything less is not acknowledging the person as a rational agent and not proper.

Taking someone's freedom away isn't a punishment for many. Obviously by committing a heinous act, they don't know what to do with freedom and abuse it.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+May 11 2005, 02:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ May 11 2005, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

basically I was using a logical stretch to the one crime that still carries the dealth penalty in this country.

I suggest you read up on your criminal offences, because treason is not punishable by the death penalty.

Yup just checked the Crim Code of Canada and under section 47 subsections 1 and 2, it ispunishable by life in prison. [/b][/quote]
Not completely sure on this, its definitely not punishable by death for civilians... but it might be lingering around in military law... maybe someone can clarify this.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm all for returning hard labor as part of the sentence. Make then build highways without trucks, or pavers. I need a pyramid built in my image and we need people to haul stones and carve them.

I'm not convinced about the "Happiness thing" The fact that they can spend time with a color T.V., and pool tables and 8 hole golf courses, while they have BBQ's in Ontario prisons is not a deterant to me.

I'm all for gaoling personally for repeat offenders.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+May 11 2005, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ May 11 2005, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Greater than coal?!?!

Best Simpsons reference ever[/b][/quote]
Thank you, thank you.

It was too big a melon to miss

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Thunderball+May 11 2005, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunderball @ May 11 2005, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

If you don't take away more than freedom you'll end up with people with bad day to day situations on the outside killing and raping people in order to get to the inside and be fed, etc without strings.

Sure they can't leave, but if it's not unpleasant it may be too much of a step up from their every day lives, leaving society at risk.

I agree with Bingo completely, but I totally understand where Agamemnon is coming from.

As much as I hate philosophy, Kant has an interesting view on punishment. He essentially believes that we have to punish people because they ought to be punished. Anything less is not acknowledging the person as a rational agent and not proper.

Taking someone's freedom away isn't a punishment for many. Obviously by committing a heinous act, they don't know what to do with freedom and abuse it.[/b][/quote]
I hear ya.

I guess I just don't see the real point behind 'punishment' as we know it. I believe that 'punishment' should focus on why they did the crime, how it happened, and how they're never going to do it again. 2 years for armed robbery is, essentially, an eye for an eye. You've wronged us, so we'll wrong you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that as soon as an act is committed, its against the point to react, I just don't like how we react.

I guess I'll stick with my belief that prison, as we know it, is disgusting torture. I think one of the greatest crimes of our society is the running 'don't drop the soap in the shower' joke. I'm not sure what's more pathetic, the prison-system for allowing the abuses, or the public for not being outraged by them. I'm sure 4 out of 5 people say 'good, prison is supposed to suck'.

I don't see a huge difference between depriving someone of their life, and taking away every single joyful aspect of it. All we're trying to do is re-create a hell on earth for these people, why not just send them there? I don't get the double-talk behind 'the death penalty is wrong, but long-term miserable incarceration is right'.

Like I said, I get that I'm in the minority, and that my solution can probably be interpreted as Utopian. I guess I'm looking at this from a moral-social point of view. Seeing row upon row of cement tombs with bars makes me sick. No wonder suicide rates are so high in prison that those are also a running joke.

Taking someone's freedom away isn't a punishment for many. Obviously by committing a heinous act, they don't know what to do with freedom and abuse it

I beg to differ. I think if you or I had our freedom taken away, we'd contemplate suicide. Freedom deprivation is not being p*ssed because you don't have a choice of what to watch on TV, its' never again knowing the comfort of a woman. Never having a family. Never being able to see your family. Etc. I think you undervalue freedom a LOT.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think there's some middle ground, for first time offenders, you can work on rehabilitation, education, job skills and getting them back into society, for the people who re-offend, we should thow them into the deepest dankest pit we can find cover it with concrete and salt the earth around it. I see a re-offender as someone who's betrayed the trust, and they're not re-deemible.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Captain, but the issue that is then raised is whether individuals who have served their time are put into a position where they might view their only options as to reoffend. I am not saying this is my viewpoint, but there are many who feel this way, that the community, and the police stigmatize the offender to such a degree that one of two things happen, they either reoffend because they feel as though they in effect the offender and should act as such as well the labeling theory would proport. The other arguement is that society doesn't offer the followup resources to the individuals who have been released and as a result there is no one to turn to if the feelings do return.

Often times sex offenders hate themselves more than we hate them actually

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 11 2005, 10:10 PM
Captain, but the issue that is then raised is whether individuals who have served their time are put into a position where they might view their only options as to reoffend. I am not saying this is my viewpoint, but there are many who feel this way, that the community, and the police stigmatize the offender to such a degree that one of two things happen, they either reoffend because they feel as though they in effect the offender and should act as such as well the labeling theory would proport. The other arguement is that society doesn't offer the followup resources to the individuals who have been released and as a result there is no one to turn to if the feelings do return.

Often times sex offenders hate themselves more than we hate them actually

Understood, but disagreed with. If you look at the prison system, there are ample opportunities for treatment, job training and other resources, its up to the convicts to take advantage of them. They have all kinds of resources during thier reintegations through half way houses, and thier parole officers, so I can't buy that they're disadvantaged in that way.

Re-offending is a choice that they have to physically make, and if they choose to do something that they know is wrong for a second time, then there's no need for them to be in society.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 11 2005, 10:31 PM
Re-offending is a choice that they have to physically make, and if they choose to do something that they know is wrong for a second time, then there's no need for them to be in society.

I guess I'd take issue with this. I don't believe that, upon birth, we're all equal, and that we all have an equal chance of becoming criminals. I think your parents, neighbourhood, city, country, and society are all factors in making you what you are.

If you're born in a ghetto, your parents are thieves, brothers and sisters are thieves, and friends are drug-dealers, how we expect you to live a socially acceptable lifestyle? If your options are break the law or live in poverty, do you really have an option? The hard-liners, of course, say 'yes, you always have an option'. I think people that say these things have never been to this place, when you're truly between a rock and hard place.

Just because someone keeps robbing liquor stores doesn't mean their brain is hard-wired to rob liquor stores. It could mean that thats the only way to make a decent living for them.

What's the incentive not to re-offend? Prison? Clearly that doesn't work... are these people born to be criminals, regardless of background?