I think there is a country that does that... I dont which one.. there was a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and she went blind.  the guy was sent- to blindness .. they are going to put him to sleep and  take his vision away.

He will be blind for the rest of his life..   Just like his victum..

		spapad wrote:
		Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme?

I think there is a country that does that... I dont which one.. there was a woman who had acid thrown in her face, and she went blind.  the guy was sent- to blindness .. they are going to put him to sleep and  take his vision away.

He will be blind for the rest of his life..   Just like his victum..

		spapad wrote:
		Hamurabi's law. The first law. Eye for and eye, we all know it. Bet crime would go way down if that law was brought back. But, perhaps too extreme?

Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.

		Head banger wrote:
		no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails.  its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason.  I just think its beter.      _strat_ wrote: Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.      Head banger wrote: I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them.  it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.      _strat_ wrote: Good afternoon Ron...  Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same. If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.      ronhartsell wrote: Good morning Strat... In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while... To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue... In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence... I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...      _strat_ wrote: Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.  The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs. That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much. And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?

Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.

		Head banger wrote:
		no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails.  its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason.  I just think its beter.      _strat_ wrote: Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.      Head banger wrote: I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them.  it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.      _strat_ wrote: Good afternoon Ron...  Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same. If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.      ronhartsell wrote: Good morning Strat... In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while... To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue... In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence... I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...      _strat_ wrote: Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.  The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs. That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much. And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?

Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.

		Head banger wrote:
		no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails.  its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason.  I just think its beter.      _strat_ wrote: Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.      Head banger wrote: I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them.  it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.      _strat_ wrote: Good afternoon Ron...  Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same. If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.      ronhartsell wrote: Good morning Strat... In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while... To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue... In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence... I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...      _strat_ wrote: Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.  The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs. That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much. And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?

I couldnt agree with more!!!!!!   Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...

Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in.    I Call it  KARMA.....

		Head banger wrote:
		vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty.  what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?      ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote:   That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society,  when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things...  stealing, ect..  drugs are a huge problem,  esp Crack,,  but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,  But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,,  WTF??????   Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL....  They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as  assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped.  But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...       _strat_ wrote:   Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there. I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.      Head banger wrote:   Exactly,  make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society.  They are not slaves, they are paying their debt.  Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison.  in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned.  in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime.  win win. sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.      BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:   If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM