I think the idea of a private organization voluntarily taking on lifetime prisoners to prevent executions is exciting. I would be against the death penalty whether or not I had to be “responsible” for that position, in the sense that Richard brought up, i.e. having to put money where my mouth is, but I think that more importantly, this idea is something concrete that opponents of the penalty can do, on a realistic, small scale. As it is we seem simply to wait for the government to act on principle, which will, it seems in the U.S., be a long, long wait.
Private, profit-generating prisons are a whole different story and, in my opinion, easier to discredit on ethical grounds than even the death penalty. In effect it is ownership of human beings by human beings, and no more need be said. The only thing that gives the government the right to intern people is that it IS the government, and hence empowered to take away some people’s freedom in order to provide a viable society for the rest. Turning prisoners over to companies to be milked of labor is similar to cannibalism: it erases the line between humans and other animals. That line may have no scientific basis, but it is the foundation of society.
I wonder what people have to say about a broader (vaguer) question this raises: do you think the disintegration of society in the U.S., and maybe all the developed countries, is unstoppable? I mean, it occurs to me that maybe the U.S. is compelled to gradually (or, as in the last three months, not so gradually) increase draconian measures against suspects, defendants, and convicts, because if it doesn’t, the cities will go from hazardous to outright unlivable. And if this is so, the two possible outcomes are: a) “Mad Max,” and b) “1984”. Speaking pessimistically (spelled right?).
I’ll bet most advocates of “tough” treatment of prisoners have never imagined the possibility that they might themselves be incarcerated someday.
Private (profit and not-for-profit) correctional facilities are already a reality in the US. I’m not sure how prevalent they are, but as of 1996 at least 22 states allowed private correctional facilities to operate. A brief history can be found here: http://leg.state.mt.us/reports/reference/past_interim/cor_rpt4.htm
quote[quote] Private (profit and not-for-profit) correctional facilities are already a reality in the US [/quote]
- and one important point is that they are traded on the exchange. For example - Wackenhut (WHC) has gone from $14 to $31 over the last few years. As a publicly traded company they answer only to the shareholder - who typically wants the share price to increase.
So how do they provide shareholder return and ensure an increase in share price? Obviously one way is by building and filling more prisons. Therefore “rehabilitation” is a negative “market force” on their business. To ensure “market growth” they need high rates of re-offending.
-They also need longer sentences - so I wonder if they are like the pharmaceutical companies - do they sponsor Judge Conventions, mail free samples (?) etc.
Another way is by selling the prisoners (sorry - employees) labour (sorry -services)-hence the re-emergence of road gangs. So the state buys cheap labour from the Prison company - thus ensuring that the regular stiff ends up out of a job - has to steal to support the family - ends up in front of a judge giving out long sentences - and ultimately ends up an “employee” of our ever growing corporate protector.
But hey - you can’t argue with a 220% increase in share price … gives me a warm glow to think that I am investing in the safety of the community.
With respect to the situation of the Death
Penalty in Taiwan… I think this section
of the legal code is a good example of just
how Draconian and dated the Taiwanese system
is… I think there are some offenses on the
books which by no means merit the death penalty,
for example – drug dealing. I suppose this
part of the law is a hold-over from the days
of opium dealing… It is a good example of
how the original republican movement started
by Sun Yat Sen continues through our day, too.
This is the Chinese way – is it not? To hold
on to the ways of the past without considering
modern alternatives… I find it fascinating,
if not hard to understand…
Personally, I am against the death penalty for
all crimes. Be that as it may, change will
be very slow in coming to this rigid system…
Why? I will venture to suggest that the legal
system of Taiwan is very strange, as you may
well be aware: many of the codices and statutes
are based on arcane and very ancient forms of
language… You know more about it than I do.
The legal code has not been modernized all that
much as a whole, so I don’t think that with such
a faith in “traditional” education techniques,
we are going to see very much radical evolution.
What I would like to see are direct flights to
Shanghai and Xiamen, but that’s another ballgame…
Being opposed to the death penalty, I would have no objection to paying extra taxes for increased prison services if these gave a greater emphasis to rehabilitation. Simply locking a person away for a number of years for committing a crime without educating them about what they have done wrong/the effects on their victims etc achieves nothing. I would much rather see criminals being released that hopefully have learnt from their mistakes and are ready to re-integrate into society, than those that have undergone physical/mental abuse and become even more bitter/angry and maladjusted. Is it any wonder that the recidivism rate is so high?
But then,call me a cynic,but people will never agree to putting more money into rehab programs despite the fact that they DO work. Also, are there any stats on whether the crime rates in countries with the death penalty are any lower than countries without?
Instead of the Death Penalty, (Which is sort of like closing the barn door after the horse gets loose) I am in favor of self defense. I am of the belief that one has a moral obligation to oneself, one’s family and society in general to defend oneself with lethal force when necessary.
Ask yourself this: Would you rather be murdered and have your murderer executed? Or would you rather pull out your Glock and kill your assailiant and go home to your family?
When you defend yourself, not only are you protecting yourself or your family, you are protecting your attacker’s next victim.
No, this isn’t the same as being a vigilante.
No, this isn’t “Street Justice”; this is SAVING YOUR LIFE. Your attacker is trying to KILL you. Since you’ve had the misfortune of catching him in the act of trying to kill/rape/whatever there is no question of his guilt.
Yes, you may still lose, but even a small chance of survival is better than none.
Sorry Eric, but I can’t really agree with your statement. It is one thing to use some device or method to immobilize a possible attacker, but it is something else to carry a kind of weapon that could kill the person in question.
Killing someone is irreversible. When a court makes a mistake and finds out after a number of years that someone was actually innocent, then no matter how much money the state will pay him for compensation, his life may be ruined. But at least, he is still alive and has the chance to continue a normal life. Such mistakes are even made by courts - which have the opportunity to do a propper investigation of all circumstances. If you are attacked on the street (or maybe you only think you are attacked or are going to be attacked soon) you will probably not have the chance to do any investigation about the person in front of you.
If you carry a gun, you must be ready to use it - or it may be turned against you. But that will lead many people to use that gun in a “preventive” way, because you can either wait until the guy in front of you draws his own gun and kills you or you are faster and kill him first. The problem is, he might just wanted to reach into his pocket to take out a piece of paper with an address to ask you for the way…
Things like this will always happen as long as people carry guns and the result will often be the death of a human being. If instead people carry some spray, gas or anything non-lethal, a person may accidentily get hurt, but will at least survive and live on.
I am against the death penalty for the simple reason that it is irreversible, terminal, final - and there is no guarantee the people deciding to apply it will not make a mistake - period.
The van Damme case got me thinking about the death penalty. I mean, if ever there was a case where capital punishment was justified, this would be it. But, I dunno - I still have something of a queasy feeling about sentencing anyone to death.
I am not sure if I was sitting on the jury, that I could have demanded the death sentence, even if I was convinced of his guilt.
Any die-hard “hang’em high” types or other “softies” got any views? What crimes does Taiwan have capital punishment for?
Horrific crimes. But isn’t PUBLIC hanging a really dangerous move? I mean, the point of making it public is surely partly to intimidate the rest of the population - how could we be sure that death sentences would not then be (mis)used for such methods of control? This is what happens in China, where the appropriate four-character phrase is something like “Kill the chicken to scare the monkey.”
I used to be totally in favor of capital punishment for certain crimes, including murder, attempted murder (why should a guy’s sentence be lessened because he failed… its the thought that counts) and rape.
Philosophically, I believe that captial punishment fits any of the crimes I indicated above, and perhaps some other crimes as well. But in terms of practice, I have come to believe that because in some instances, innocent defendants are sentenced wrongfully to death, capital punishment is not something that I can support.
Thus, I support wholeheartedly capital punishment in theory, in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever regarding the guilt of the defendant. My view is that life is difficult enough worrying about and dealing with injury and illness and just the business of getting by. I have no tolerance for people who can not control their anger or sorrow or who kill or rape or attempt to do so merely for their own convenience or any other reason with the exception of self-defense for cases of murder.
I really don’t think it too much to ask that people NOT commit rape and or murder… and I see no reason to give people who have thus transgressed the bounderies of civilized society “another chance”. The victims don’t get another chance and I believe that we as a society have an obligation to make our collective lives as safe as possible, and notwithstanding all of the arguments about “getting to the source” of the problem behind such misbehavior as rape and murder, I think killing off such offenders does make society safer, at least from those particular offenders.
Unfortunately, in practice capital punishment is sometimes errantly applied. Because I cannot tolerate killing unless done in self-defense (and I think that executing a murderer or rapist after a fair trial is a form of societal self-defence, from recidivist acts at least), I cannot support the actual (practical) use of capital punishment.
As far as I know, although sentencing may be done at public rallies in China, the actual execution is not public. It is done at a firing range or other secluded spot. Interestingly, condemned criminals are not executed inside prisons because it is regarded as inhumane for other inmates to hear the sound of gunfire. There may be some exceptions to this - If anyone knows any different, feel free to correct me. I once saw an execution televised in China, but that was a very long time ago - 1981 or thereabouts. Do they still show executions on television? That would be a public execution in my books.
Reference: Shot at dawn! Shooting and the firing squad. (Note, although this article uses the phrase “mass public execution” in relation to China, the term is at variance with the rest of the content, which shows that only the sentencing rally is public.)
Well, it looks as though there is a strong public element - parading them around a stadium in an open truck, prior to being shot. And, according to the quote in the article:
The reason for having capital punishment seems quite clear. Mr T’s concerns with miscarriages of justice seems fair - the whole point of the appeals system is that sentences can be overturned, but how do you overturn a death sentence?
China does not seem to have much in the way of an appeals process…
Bluenumberthingyperson,
In your link, there seemed to be some confusion as to which brother did what. (Quite possibly a trick contrived by both of them to cloud the issue). In such an instance, can a death penalty be “safe?”
[quote=“Juba”]
I once saw an execution televised in China, but that was a very long time ago - 1981 or thereabouts. Do they still show executions on television?[/quote]
I saw one on TV (in HK) as recently as the early nineties, the sports stadium variety with hundreds getting the bullet at once.
IMO, if you would use capital punishment as a deterrent, what’s the point of having a private execution? That’s like using cute cartoon characters to deter drunk drivers or smokers. (oh wait, they do that here as well… duh) I’m not arguing for or against the death penalty itself here, I just think that if you are going to end a life as a deterrent, get the maximum effect from it.
Capital punishment is babaric. Moreover, it’s hard to undo if you end up killing the wrong guy. No reason to take a life to revenge another. Lock mass murderers up forever instead, I say.
I think revenge and retribution are perfectly valid reasons for executing a sentence of capital punishment. A life for a life seems a fair trade to me. What is the reason, other than the possibility of mistake, for not executing killers?
Is it wrong to take a life as a punishment - regardless or not of any feelings of revenge? Is it not legitimate to say: “This person has killed another unjustifiably and therefore forfeits the right to their own life.” That is making the punishment fit the crime - no hint of revenge.
[quote=“Mr He”][quote=“tigerman”]
Why is that not barbaric?[/quote]
Because you can at least let them out if found innocent.[/quote]
And if it is not barbaric, then is it not an insufficient punishment for a barbaric crime?
But, why is revenge barbaric. Isn’t revenge a component of all types of punishment?
Why is that not barbaric?
Yes, of course. But is caging human beings not barbaric, in and of itself?
Anyway, in my post I indicated that I agree that capital punishment is appropriate in theory, where there is NO doubt whatsoever regarding the guilt of the defendnt. The reason that I don’t support the use of capital punishment is because the sentence is sometimes imposed erroneously. But what, philosophically (or theoretically) rather than practically, is wrong, in your opinion, with capital punishment?
I am completely opposed to capital punishment. The fact that innocent people could be executed is a simple argument against it. I believe it is morally unacceptable. If people believe it is wrong to kill then why is it acceptable to kill someone as a punishment?
What about forgiveness and compassion? Just because a person has committed a terrible crime they are still human and deserve to be treated as such.